Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The following request for comments is closed. See results below
Comments in English, Deutsch + Hrvatski possible

I have been blocked on hr.wiki by User:Kubura. The reason he give in his first explanation was a dispute between us here on meta due the GR request of User:Dalibor Bosits, where I have remove his comments and stalk on user. After that, explanation was changed, and he added reasons months ago:

Some months ago, User:Roberta F. commented a proposal of User:Ivan Štambuk for a unified b/h/s Wiktionary, which I have support. In this interview to a news paper, she commented two votes of sysops from bs.wiki. One of those was mine. I have warned her not to put other users in medial fire without asking them. Also, I warned her that she is not an official representative of WMF(listed here and whole posting can be seen here), but that is not my problem but a problem of WMF and Laws. This was taken as a personal attack even if I discuss this with Roberta F. after that on IRC. In my statement, I also sayed that a Croatian chapter of WMF is not verified by WMF (and it´s a fact) and now Kubura is calling me lier.

Trough the confrontations on hr.wiki, and as a try to solve them, me and two of admins (User:Lasta, User:Ante Perkovic who is actually not a admin) and one Steward, talked about implementing of an AbrCom. We have talk to other involved user (User:SpeedyGonsales) on IRC and he had support idea. There come a consensus about neutral members of ArbCom, and after that, Lasta prepared (with my assistance) the rules for election and work. Some weeks later, ArbCom was established with community votes. The first dicision of the ArbCom was a one year block of Ante Perkovic, SpeedyGonsales and Roberta F. The actual CU User:Ex13 was blocked for a month. The reasons were:

For SpeedyGonsales and Roberta F.:

  1. Dispute resolution
  2. Concensus
  3. Staying cool when the editing gets hot
  4. Assume good faith
  5. No personal attacks
  6. Harrasment
  7. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

For Ex13:

  1. Dispute resolution
  2. No personal attacks
  3. Assume good faith

For Ante Perkovic:

  1. What Wikipedia is not
  2. Assume good faith
  3. Harrasment

In the last months, ArbCom was under pressure and one after other member resigned. There was a voting for removing of ArbCom (which passes) and after that for removing of blocks for Ante Perkovic, SpeedyGonsales and Roberta F. (which also have been removed even if decision of ArbCom was one year and no sysop or ´crat rights for the next year after block expire [1]). Now, for this, Kubura see me as a disruptive part of community just because I have take a part in ArbCom implementing.

Other reasons he added after the first, are taking a part in discussions and no constructive edits in his opinion.

As the rules of hr.wiki are expecting, I have made a request for a third meaning about this issue [2]. I have made it as a IP, because Kubura didn´t even alow me to edit my own talkpage. This meaning can be given only by admins! After that, Kubura started to talk like: It was not just his decision to block me, but their, without naming other admins. I asked him several times to name other admins on my request, because I can´t expect a neutral meaning of other admins involved in this issue and would change my request in this case, but he don´t want to give the names. I also have ask him to show the rules which I didn´t follow and which can explain the block, but he is ignoring it. I also asked why he didn´t block me earlier, but there are also no answers.

In the following discussion he calls other admins lier and troll, me troll (seen as personal attack), he don´t assume good faith, is trolling on the request without answers on my questions, shows a high level of harassment and just gives the same trollish answer over and over again.

The meanings of other admins can be seen here (please use google translation, in other case if there is a need I can translate it) and here in short:

  1. User:Lasta Block is without any base and it is a misuse of admin tools
  2. User:MayaSimFan Meta reasons are for meta and have nothing to do with hr.wiki in other, she agree with Lasta
  3. User:Ex13 has agree that meta issues should stay on meta, but is also against deblock for issues I post above.
  4. User:Bracodbk has agree that meta issues should stay there and thinks that block even based on the issues above is too long (per indefinite) and that there were other cases with more weight which didn´t get such a block. He also prefere a solving of this matter by me and Kubura
  5. User:Fraxinus Shows up that I have make mistakes, but also is asking if the block hadn´t be maded at the time of making those mistakes. Also he is thinking that block for ever is to high, and I should get another chance.
  6. User:Saxum is supporting block and notes that there are two other users which would support it even if they are not admins (SpeedyGonsales and Roberta I think, ´couse he didn´t give any names), which are truly against me as “one of the reasons for their block by ArbCom” and for issues named above.

Because there is no trust in other neutral admin meanings (as Kubura says there are more admins involved in this decision, but didn´t name them) and there is no ArbCom any more, I´m making this request here. I would also like to hear meanings of other users, admins and stewards here on meta. If there is a concensus that this block is misuse of admin tools, I would request deblock of me and desysop of Kubura by harassment, not assuming good faith, personal attacks (several times), trolling and wikistalk. --WizardOfOz talk 08:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SpeedyGonsales[edit]

It is interesting that user WizardOfOz spends 80% percent of his Request for comment on explaining creation of our (Croatian) ArbComm, and subject of his RFC is misuse of admin tools by some user which had no connections to our ArbComm. It is not interesting, but bad faith, he states what it is not:

  • The first dicision of the ArbCom was a one year block of Ante Perkovic, SpeedyGonsales and Roberta F. The actual CU User:Ex13 was blocked for a month.
  • Actually, first decision of the ArbCom was a one year block of Ante Perkovic. He was accused of misuse of CU tools.
  • Second decision of the ArbCom was a one year block of myself (SpeedyGonsales) and Roberta F., and one month for user Ex13.
A few months later ArbComm gradually disolved because some members resigned, our community then firstly voted for closure of ArbComm, and then lifted all blocks.
I am president of Wikimedia Croatia, which is not yet part of Wikimedia Foundation, but is legal entity registered in Croatia. User Roberta F. is secretary of Wikimedia Croatia. User WizardOfOz is not member of Wikimedia Croatia, is not member of board of Wikimedia Foundation, and I really do not know why he is meddling in our affairs, as he is obviously not entitled to in any way. Article in newspapers was not an interview, but journalist have found topic on forum, and then came to Wikipedia. As I am told, Roberta F. answered on question of journalist as Wikipedia user, not a representative either of Wikimedia Croatia or WMF. So accusations of user WizardOfOz are actually legal threats, which are NOT allowed on hr wiki Bez_pravnih_prijetnji - equivalent of No legal threats, and to my knowledge also they are not allowed on any Wikimedia project.
And at last place, but maybe I should have wrote this on first place, discussion on Croatian wiki is not over yet, as not 7 days has passed from 17:51, 1st of March 2010. (CET), when user WizardOfOz posted his Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora - equivalent of Request for admin comments. All in all, lot of mistakes which hardly can be treated as accidental errors, but are quite clearly bad faith and personal attacks. SpeedyGonsales 12:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is over on this point as Kubura posted that there are more admins involved without naming them. I can´t hope on neutral view if a admin who is involved is the same who comments. I have ask for names several times trough the discussion, but he don´t want to give out the names of others. How can i expect neutral discussion if the same users which have been involved in Kuburas action are judges? If there are names, then i can make a new request so the other can give their opinion and their POV but not to give "neutral comments as not involved admins" on the first request. BTW No legal threats is not standing above the laws. If someone try to soil my reputation as a private person without giving me chance to defend myselfe, if i want, i can use the legal ways of justice. And as you say I am president of Wikimedia Croatia, which is not yet part of Wikimedia Foundation, thats just the same as i sayed as he calls me lier now. I never have say that is not a legal institution in Croatia. As it in´t a part of WMF, their members can only present the view of Wikimedia Croatia, but not of Wikipedia.hr which is a part of WMF. Therefore are the official speakers which i listed above and do the same at that comment some months ago. For the way the members of ArbCom resigned, there will be sure answers of them perhaps on other requests, but not here as this is not a request about that. And as a reason for my comment about ArbCom i can give the same as Kubura: he wants to present my work with Lasta at that point as disruptive work against Wikipedia, and I have a right to defend myself. But THX for your posting. --WizardOfOz talk 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW No legal threats is not standing above the laws. Exactly - if you think laws were broken, please sue anybody, but please do not threat or warn anybody on Wikimedia projects per Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages. And if you are stating something, write truthfully, please! SpeedyGonsales 13:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Try to read my posting above: If someone try to soil my reputation as a private person without giving me chance to defend myselfe, if i want, i can use the legal ways of justice. Try to read my posting there: but it´s not my problem. And if you have something to ad on this request, so please try to hold the line and don´t go off topic as your both comments are. THX --WizardOfOz talk 13:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy, You just can't stop, do you?

I didn't wanted to involve in this discussion, but I see that You keep playing your game.

You wrote:

Actually, first decision of the ArbCom was a one year block of Ante Perkovic. He was accused of misuse of CU tools.
You accused missuse od CU rights, but ArbCom said nothing about it. So, don't play games with mentioning that I was accused, and keeping quiet about not being blocked for that.
Second decision of the ArbCom was a one year block of myself (SpeedyGonsales) and Roberta F., and one month for user Ex13.
You and Roberta were also blocked for trying to manipulates the head od ArbCom by spreading lies about me (they told him that I harrased some other ArbCom members, which was proven to be lie) and for manipulating the community in several other occacions. So, please, try not to repeat your sins here by spreading half-truths.
I was the only one of 4 of us who accepted ArbCom decisions without complaint.
BTW, this wasn't about our case at all. So leave me and my block out of this. --Ante Perkovic 07:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ex13[edit]

Is this general disccusion on croatian wikipedia, about Ante Perkovic, SpeedyGonsales, Roberta F., about ArbCom, about hr:wiki Community or this should be discussion about misuse of admin tools by Kubura? After I read the above Wizard's "problems", i fully agree that WizarOfOz should be blocked for indefinit period of time, because he goes personal against other useres, including me. WizardOfOz isn't the permanent user on croatian wiki at all. --Ex13 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No it´s just showing up of reasons for block he gives one day after block. And please give me a definition of permanent user on hr.wiki? --WizardOfOz talk 12:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SveroH[edit]

WizardOfOz is one of best users i know. He is blocked on Croatian wiki by user Kubura, without valid reason. Sysop Kubura has blocked him because of something that happened here on meta, and Kubura confirmed that on IRC. On other hand user Kubura was trolling and spamming. After WizardOfOz told him not to spam and troll, and that he is not on hr wiki, he was blocked on hr wiki. Kubura has misused admin tools, blocked one user on one project because of something that happened on other project, spammed, trolled, not assumed good faith... WizardOfOz should be unblocked, and Kubura should be desysop.--SveroH 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SveroH, please write your message (WizardOfOz should be unblocked, and Kubura should be desysop) on hr.wiki, so the whole hr.wiki. community should know about your attitude. You haven't said anything about WizardOfOz's attacks on the admins, bureaucrats and checkusers from hr.wiki. Obviously you haven't read a single line that I've written on hr.wiki about this case. Kubura 03:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
WizardOfOz has done some mistakes, but you did an mistake too. difference is that you made bigger mistake. Kubura, you blocked an user on one project because of something that happened on other project. that is misuse of admin tools. how can i know that you won't block somebody because of something that happened somewhere else. how can we on hr wiki have sysop wich is misusing admin tools? we can't trust him. and, have you seen what sysops on hr wiki say? some say that block is not needed, others agree with block but not forever. Kubura: where should i say something on hr wiki? on zahtjev za mišljenje administratora only sysops can say what they think.--SveroH 12:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
SveroH, please, don't play dumb. You obviously support WizardOfOz's attacks against the admins on hr.wiki, since you haven't said a word about them. You're evading to talk about that, aren't you? If you're dissatisfied with me on hr.wiki, say it on hr.wiki. As I see, you use Meta as a mean to evade the procedures on hr.wiki. To evade the opinion of the other users from hr.wiki, since majority of them don't visite Meta at all. You have Kafić. I repeat: this RfC is an attempt to evade hr.wiki and to rule over hr.wiki from another project. . Kubura 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Kubura[edit]

This Request for comment is just another WizardOfOz's attack on the administrator from hr.wiki. This is his attempt of exhausting me the targeted administrator from Wikipedia in Croatian, since he has already started an request on hr.wiki. Now, with this RfC, it seems that I have to answer the same thing ten times.
There's a ongoing request processed on hr.wiki hr:Wikipedija:Zahtjev_za_mišljenje_administratora#Zlouporaba_administratorskih_ovlasti_od_strane_suradnika_Kubure, WizardOfOz started that request, using the term "abuse"..
Now he has spread the battlefield on Meta, although the main reason for the block was WizardOfOz's attacking behaviour on hr.wiki against the several administrators, bureaucrats and checkusers from that project (through several months).
Since hr.wiki is not big wiki, the number of attacked admins is big.
This is the continuation of Wizard's harassing of administrators from hr.wiki.
This RfC is also the attempt of evasion of the the hr.wiki.community. The request is already being processed on hr.wiki. And under the false excuse [3], WizardOfOz has redirected the request here ("Kako suradnik Kubura nije spreman imenovati druge admine koji su ucestvovali u odluci, i kako ne mogu ocekivati njihovo neutralno glediste ako su dio onih koji su podrzali odluku prije blokade a nisu imenovani, zahtjev je prenesen na metu"=translation: "Since Kubura's not ready to name the other admins that've participated in the decision, and since I cannot expect their neutral attitude if they're the part of those that've supported the decision before the block, but they weren't named, the request was transferred to Meta).
WizardOfOz, please, don't twist my words. You've said on this page on Meta "as Kubura says there are more admins involved in this decision, but didn´t name them". I haven't said that. Don't twist my words. The decision for blocking him was exclusively my decision.
On the request on hr.wiki that WizardOfOz started hr:Wikipedija:Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora, I gave the explanations there, as well as on his talkpage on hr.wikihr:Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:WizardOfOz#Troliranje.2C_napadi_i_omalova.C5.BEavanje. All links are there. WizardOfOz hasn't said a single word about his attacking behaviour on hr.wiki. He's persistently evading to answer that. He's persistently distracting the attention towards Meta, although he was blocked for his attacking behaviour on hr.wiki.
Majority of users from Meta don't know Croatian. Therefore, they don't know how heavy were those Wizard's attacks and how much he was trolling. I haven't reacted earlier, since I've tried to assume good faith. So I've let him work to see how'll he behave in the future. I'm not reacting impusively. I always wait for a period of time and think.
WizardOfOz is not the regular, neither important contributor on hr.wiki project. Hr.wiki is not his homewiki. These were his last 250 edits in the mainspace on hr.wiki [4] (as of March 4, 2010 in 3:16, his last edit was in 10:03, Feb 21, 2010, and 250 edits before were in 13:12, December 21, 2008. During 1 year 2 months and 14 days, or 438 days, only 250 edits, 0,57 per day). And see many of those were reverts, and how many "pure" contributions. But still, he allowed himself to attack the administrators, bureaucrats and checkusers. See the links on hr.wiki. Kubura 03:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask You a few questions? -- Bojan  Talk  10:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This request on hr.wiki is invalid, as you are talking about "other" admins which are involved, and you don´t want to give their names. I can´t expect a neutral comment if an admin is involved. I asked several times for the names, and you didn´t answer. So, this RfC was transfered to meta. I have nothing against judging of my mistakes, but i have something against judging of people who were involved in your action. About the reason of block:

Već mjesecima nastojim pretpostaviti Vašu dobru namjeru.
No ovaj napad na hr.wiki [5], zatim ovo [6] je prevršilo svaku mjeru "You don´t even have an global account, nothing to say about your fight against vandals ". A moja patroliranja se broje u tisućama mjesečno? Bambifana stalno blokiram i ispravljam i o tome imam trag komunikacije na wiki. prostoru. Spominjanje moje blokade de.wiki kao nešto mjerodavno je drski bezobrazluk. Na hr.wiki postoji cijela stranica sa popisom nepravilnosti na Wikipediji na njemačkom jeziku. Onakvo Vaše pisanje daje da Vi podupirete onu blokadu.
Ustrajno pisanje laži o netkome (vidi gornje) s ciljem da ga se provocira je troliranje. A kada te stvari idu u pravcu i da se netkoga omalovaži, to je već element mobbinga, a to nije bezazlena stvar.
Od suradnika koji cenzurira nečiji odgovor (nakon što je taj netko bio napadnut od strane tog istog cenzora) ne mogu očekivati ozbiljnu suradnju.
Nekoliko puta prije ste napali naše administratore i ugledne suradnike. Počevši od ustrajnog kritiziranja do riječi kao "zloporaba" i spominjanje prekršaja i sudova.
Nitko od nas (kojima je hr.wiki matični projekt) nije došao na Vaš matični projekt i redom poimence napadao administratore, birokrate i provjeritelje (sadašnje i bivše).
Živjeli Vi sto godina. Bog Vam dao zdravlje. Ali ako se želite ponašati onako, probajte to na nekom drugom wikipedijskom projektu. Kubura (razgovor) 01:21, 1. ožujka 2010. (CET)

  • Translation: (my additions are marked as WoO:)

For months i´m trying to assume your good faith
But this attack on hr.wiki (WoO: meta talk of Kubura), then this (WoO: meta talk Kubura) has is above every mass. "You don´t even have an global account, nothing to say about your fight against vandals ". And my patrol activity are in thosands in a month (WoO: means on hr.wiki)? I´m blocking Bambifan and i correct him and have a path of communication (WoO: meaning about this, some informing of Wutsje and I think of Leinad, about Bambifan after one more sock was blocked) on wiki space. Remaining to my block on de.wiki as a messure is just a pert move. There is a page on hr.wiki with a list of uncorrectness on de.wiki (WoO: why is this not changed on de.wiki if incorrect?!? Or is it just incorrect why it is his POV? How can a wiki decide about correctness of other wiki?). This shows that you are supporting block on de.wiki (WoO: yes I truly does, becaouse of your POV edits, there is also a user which is your sock IMO, but this will be solved there where it´s belongs and that is de.wiki in this case).
Writing of lies about someone (see above) with the try to provoke him is trolling(WoO: which kind of lies? Are you blocked or not on de.wiki? [7]). And if the things are going in the way to disdain someone, that is a element of mobbing, and that is not a harmless thing (WoO: yes, and that is what are you doing all the time! You have inform me that you don´t understand my croatian. But you are well understanding two users which cant even a part of grammar of croatian).
From a user who censure someones answer (after this someone was attacked from censor (WoO: please show me this attack!)), I can´t expect a good ccoperation
You have several times attack our admins and prominent user(WoO: if there were attacks, why didn´t they block me at that time?!?). Started with ongoing critics to words like "abuse" and referencing to offence and Courts (WoO: explained in the first part as Roberta F. have make an interview, or as SpeedyGonsales says "they come to her").
Nobody of us (users their homewiki is hr.wiki) didn´t come to your home wiki and have attack your admins, ´crats and CU (actual and not actual)(WoO: why didn´t you blok me therefore a bit lesser than a year ago?!? You are at first talking about critic and now attacks. Critic is not a attack!)
You should live 100 years. Godd gives you health. But if you want to show behavior like this, try it on an other project.

  • In this citation can be seen that reason is meta and my action on meta. On hr. request i have inform Kubura to put my action on meta, here on RfC, and so it can be decide if i´ve been wrong and have make mistake, but he didn´t do that. I have also inform him that his patroling on hr. wiki has nothing to do with an global work, as it is just local work. The other part of his explanation was just few minutes after he post this above on IRC. In this case, i must broke rules of freenode and post a log of this conversation to aprove it ´couse ia have no other posibillity. As the words are for me or mine, i don´t think that there is a problem. This can be confirmed from an other user who was on the channel at this moment (translation added):
  • <WizardOfOz_>Kubura mozes mi malo poblkize objasniti blok? Kubura can you nearly explain me the block
  • <Kubura>Napadi lažima. Attacks with lies
  • <Kubura>SVako ti dobro želim. I wish you every goodness
  • <WizardOfOz_>? gdje kad i kako? ?where when and how?
  • <Kubura>Bog ti dao zdravlje God should give you health
  • <Kubura>i nadživio ti mene sto godina and you should live houndred years longer than me
  • <WizardOfOz_>Kubura ovim neces proci. daj mi link Kubura this is not going trogh. Give me a link
  • <Kubura>ali onakvo ponižavanje but such humilation
  • <Kubura>i omalovažavanje je bilo previše. and disdaining was too much
  • <WizardOfOz_>Kubura jos jednom:daj mi link! Kubura once more: give me a link!
  • <Kubura>Znaš dobro što si mi napisao na razgovoru you know well what you have write on the talkpage
  • <Kubura>na Meti. on meta
  • <WizardOfOz_>blokiran zbog mete? Blocked for meta?
  • <--Kubura has left #wikipedia-hr ("Gren ća.")
  • That is a second evidence that block was just for private and for a metter of other project. All other explanations on my talkpage on hr wiki was added after this talk on irc and after he checked that this is not enough. --WizardOfOz talk 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
WizardOfOz, read carefully what have you written then [8] about Wikimedia Croatia. Kubura 03:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am standing behind every word i ever used. But you can translate it if you want Kubura --WizardOfOz talk 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
WizardOfOz, don't try to distract the case from the original problem. It was you who was attacking the administrators on hr.wiki. Don't try to protract the discussion here by posing the same questions and claims that 've already been answered on hr.wiki. Kubura 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Se my posting above. There is nothing answered from you on hr.wiki. Thats why this request is maded.--WizardOfOz talk 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have whole section on your talkpage on hr.wiki hr:Razgovor_sa_suradnikom:Seha#Troliranje.2C_napadi_i_omalovažavanje. On March 1 and March 2. Don't play dumb. Or you don't understand Croatian? Or you haven't read the explanations at all? Kubura 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BokicaK[edit]

I am familiar with misdeeds that Kubura made during last 3 years and I don't fear to say that he is disgracing hr. wiki.

  • Kubura has or had habit to put template:Translation (my translation: This article is not partially or fully translated) on talk pages before someone's comment or to try discrediting a user by simply saying if you want discussing with us, write in Croatian while disusing with users who speak Serbian or Bosnian (variants of SC language). Knowning the fact that these languages/variates are so similar/same, there is no person who can in good faith claim that they can't understand. I felt this on my skin three years ago, Wizard get this few months ago, and fresh example is user:Peko, about a month ago. After Peko, as newby (is there a guideline that says: Don't bite newbies), politely asked why Kubura had reverted his contributions in article Živaja (Peko omitted dot after number "18", so, in our language(s) it reads as 18 century, not 18th century) Kubura deleted Peko's message, locked his own talkpage, answered to Peko very provocatively (I never heard for 18 centuries/ages (18 vikova), but for Ancient (stari), Meadieval (sridnji) and New (novi)) and protected article Živaja under excuse of frequent trolling. Eventually Peko reacted a little harshly [9][10] and Kubura blocked him indefinitely. I think Peko didn't deserve block, especially not indefinite one, not after provocation by Kubura. Btw, Kubura's pal, user Markus CG don't write Croatian, but Kubura has never reacted. Btw - user Ex13, another Kubura's pal, previously known as Suradnik13, did almost same thing 16 months ago - Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia - User Suradnik13 - blocking and deleting - the case is still open.
  • During Maya's nomination for bureaucrat status, Kubura wrote pile of BSs in attempt to discredit voting. He was only against her and rationale of his vote was that bureaucrats now can grant autopatroled and patroler status?! See this for additional info
  • What do You think: does Kubura here here expressed justified concerns or is this act of revenge?
  • From Wizard's case we see that he abused his sysop rights to remove the user with whom he is in conflict ((You know, admins shouldn't block users whit whom they are engaged in a dispute). If Wizard indeed acted in bad faith, he should be blocked a few month ago, not after conflict, not indefinite without consensus of community.
  • He always tries to discredit user by saying pointing that hr. wiki is not someone's home wiki, by counting their contributions or magnifying his own contributions, e.g. you were absent for two months, the last article You were created two weeks ago you don't do anything, I am patrolling recent changes and writing articles, etc. As opposer arguments are less important if he does less, and vice-verse, Kubura's arguments are stronger cause he does much (of bad) work? Kubura's way of thinking is full of such logical fallacies. As sysop, Kubura hasn't done any technically advanced task nor he has dealt with copyright problems, so, in case of being desysopsed, CW wouldn't suffer from lack of good sysops, but from lack of problems.

-- Bojan  Talk  07:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BokicaK. Kubura is constantly harassing users from neighbouring countries. There are many Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Slovenians and some Croats from Bosniak-dominated parts od Bosnia-Herzegovina, and all of them occasionaly make some language mistakes, using words from bosniak or serbian language. Kubura has always shown extreme intolerance for serbian or bosniak contributors, at the same time tolerating the same mistakes made by bosnian Croats or Montenegrins.
We even have one slovenian from Hungary hwo speaks some remote dialect of slovenian. His croatian is terrible, so many users tried to force him to either write croatian or just go find some other wikipedia. Kubura insisted that he must be tolerated and his articles translated. Kubura is living example of double standards and of everything what admin shouldn't be. --Ante Perkovic 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder Bokica, how can you be so updated and well informed about the situation since your last edit on hr.wiki was three (3) years ago?--Saxum 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I can read Croatian. -- Bojan  Talk  18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my vote in Maya's case: I have a voting right. And noone can deny me that. I don't vote according to someone's wishes. This criticism is ordinary annoying.
Case Peko:
Peko didn't have many contributions. Mostly refined Greater Serbian propaganda (I know the matter; how many articles about that matter have written the users that criticize me, especially the users whose homewiki is hr.wiki?). And finally, Peko attacked me, calling me "limited" [11] since I don't want to read Serbian language and communicate in Croatian in Wikipedia in Croatian.
Archives are not for sending messages [12]. He had my talkpage. I haven't removed any messages that he posted there [13], including the attack [14]. So, criticizers, please, don't try to wear me out by comments that are in the rank of pestering (among questions).
But I see that someone is using Meta (for case Peko) for putting pressure on the opponent, in order to get the articlecontent in the form, by evading the local wiki. community. Use the talkpage on hr.wiki.
Finally, WizardOfOz wrote this on bs.wiki [15], when discussing about the content.
Ante, you've written above "Kubura is harassing the users from neighbouring countries". Please, write this lie in Wikipedia in Croatian. In Kafić, so everybody can see that.
Ante, you're lying. I don't harass anyone. I just require that users should use Croatian language. They must respect the language of the local community. And you dare to call that "harassing"? But tell me how many times you've wikihounded me because that attitude on hr.wiki?
Ante, about your attitude towards me and my "intolerance". I don't care who's who. I cannot know the nationality or ethnicity of the contributors. I just insist that users should use Croatian. It's easy to recognize when someone is putting effort to speak Croatian, and when it's not the case. Ante, you've harassed me, when I requested that those users should use Croatian language on hr.wiki. Ante, with such attitude, you've disrespected hr.wiki. community.
Why don't you attack and criticize the admins from bs.wiki, because they've insisted on using Bosnian language, e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19]
BokicaK, if I tolerate communication in other language with particular person (MarkusCG), that's my choice.
It's interesting that those users who criticize me for refusing to communicate in hr.wiki in Serbian or in Bosniak language "because these are similar languages, it's not so hard to learn them", it never occured to those users that it's them who came on Wikipedia in Croatian, so it'd be fair from them to respect the local language community, especially "because these are similar languages, it's not so hard to learn". They require from me to know Serbian (although they came on hr.wiki), but interestingly, when I require from them to speak in Croatian, than I'm "harassing" and "extremely intolerant".
Ante, you're the example of double standars. Just see your message. But you behave in the sense "with more attacks (no matter how ungrounded) started, more chances to hit. And more chances for fishes from Meta to bit.". Users from Meta don't know you that much. But on hr.wiki we know you.
Ante, about your attitude towards me: I still want to see in hr.wikispace the content (and the title!) of the e-mails you've sent me around Nov 27, 2009. I've told you that on Nov 27, 2009 [20]. I've reconfirmed that request on Dec 19, 2009 [21].
BokicaK, about your attitude towards me. This was your edit on the article about Željko Ražnatović Arkan [22] (you've removed the line "war criminal"), I've restored that [23]. And now, Bokica comes here. An attempt to discredit the opponent. And desysop it.
All in all, this page is the daring attempt of evasion of procedures on Wikipedia in Croatian, as well as the example of disrespect of hr.wiki. community. These problems must be solved on hr.wiki. This is just another attempt to rule hr.wiki without the support on hr.wiki. Attempt to rule hr.wiki with users that haven't written a single article (or have written unsignificant number of articles) on hr.wiki. Kubura 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, I don't now do you realize that your defense is the best attack on You so far. Your vote against Maya shows that something in not right with your logic. Yes, I concur with Peko that You are limited. I don't know does that what Peko wrote is truth not does is that what you claim is truth, it is irrelevant here; what is relevant here is fact that your contributions can not be seen as acts of good faith An open-minded user who claims good faith:

  1. won't revert someone's contribution without explanation
  2. won't protect his/her talkpage
  3. won't mock an user for one dot
  4. won't pretend that (s)he doesn't understand very similar (if not same) language
  5. won't indefinitely block user with whom (s)he is engaged in content dispute, even after his comment is somehow attacking (note: you provoked him first with actions explained in first 4 lines)
  6. won't abuse his sysop rights to lock an article on version that (s)he prefers (note: last comment on talk page of article Živaja was written by Peko and you don't responded to it; in case you did it won't look like that are fighting with arguments by using force).

It is not required from You to learn Serbian, you already knew Serbian when you learnt Croatian. As good faith editor as You claim, You should know that is is practically impossible expecting from foreigner to always use Croatian counterparts: even those who are trying to write on your way will (unknowingly to them) use local variant thinking that it is same in Croatin. But of course, you are not good faith user. Have you ever read WP:NPOV and particularly this part (it stood in main article long time ago, when I was rookie)

(User) Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.'

So, even Arkan did terrible things, for sake of NPOV, you, as experienced and open minded user, should knew that. Arkan was never convicted for his action, he was murdered before trial. If you insist that he is war criminal, then tell me why on your home wiki you won't find ratni zločinac/war criminal for people convicted for war crimes (e.g. Mirko Norac) or for not-convicted people whose crimes are undeniable (e.g. Adolph Hitler) (as I said, it is not necessary nor wise, but people should be threatened equally and independently from side on which they were fighting). There is no denying that we at srwiki have our own faults and I plead guilty in advance to all accusations of this nature. -- Bojan  Talk  15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot: BokicaK, if I tolerate communication in other language with particular person (MarkusCG), that's my choice.

That it exactly what we are talkin' about - your double standards. -- Bojan  Talk  17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Your vote against Maya shows that something in not right with your logic. Yes, I concur with Peko that You are limited" [24].
BokicaK, this is personal attack. This is also continuation of harassing and disrespect of Wikipedian.
I have my right to my personal attitude in voting. Just like any other user. And noone has right to deny me that. Respect that. You can disagree with my vote, but you have no right to attack me nor to belittle me because of my vote.
Peko attacked me with "you're limited". And you gave support to his personal attack [25].
Admins and stewards, please, take a look here. Someone is misusing this RfC as a mean to pack-attack the opponent. Kubura 10:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't take word back, you deserved even more 'cause:

  • you deliberately provoke users
  • you confirmed our accusations that You have double standards
  • you judge someone by his contributions, not arguments (even here you did that)
  • you are trying to avoid giving a straight answer to question: where did Wizard attack someone (quote, translate nad cite which rule he might violated)
  • you are constantly trying to go off-topic.
  • you don't (want to) know what is NPOV.

Regarding Maya, she is experienced editor, I admire her work and technical skills (she regularly improves templates, translates and improves mediaWiki interface, has a bot, etc; I wouldn't expect something like that from teenage girl). Nothing of this you can't do. And you voted against her 'cause she as bureaucrat can grant patroler and autopatroled status?! Until the voting she did her job perfectly, and suddenly You don't trust her. Why? -- Bojan  Talk  12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You've used this RfC for insulting me, for personal attack. "I concur with Peko that You are limited..." and "I won't take word back, you deserved even more...". Kubura 04:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't play innocent girl. You insult yourself every time you try to go off-topic and avoid answering unpleasant questions. I said: Kubura doesn't tolerate users who do not speak Croatian on talk pages. Talk pages! You said: I don't want to read Serbian language. But you actually are reading Serbian when you talk with Markus. I said: Kubura likes to judge someone by number of his edits - You (and your friends) did this dozen of time even here. I said: Kubura mocked a user, provoked the user pretending he can't understand Serbian, until the user lost temper. Even then, the worst thing the user said is that You are limited. Really, what qualifies you for being an user with additional powers, a mediator, a judge? -- Bojan  Talk  14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Ante Perkovic[edit]

Facts:

  1. The last conflict between Kubura and WizardOfOz started after Kubura tried to sabotage [26] Dalibor Bosits's candidacy for Global rollback with off-topic arguments. Kubura was warned by user:Razorflame and by wizardOfOz, who noted that his comments were misplaced. Kubura continued with off-topic comments, which WizardOfOz reverted. Kubura reacted at User_talk:Nick1915 but after few comments, Nick1915 concluded the discussion with Sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you want. (Feb 15th)
  2. Last disagreement WizardOfOz ever had with any user on hr wiki was in January, with Kubura's writting last comment on that isses on January 17th. That was 43 days before the block!!!
  3. Kubura publicly admited that this block was result of his agreement with some other people, but he refuses to name those users.
  4. Kubura explicitely mentioned WizardOfOz's behavior on Meta as a reason for infinite block on hr wiki. After being warned that he can't block WizardOfOz just because they had dissagreement on other project, Kubura pulled out bunch of old conflicts, trying to persuade us that this block had nothing to do with conflicts on Meta or some other places.
  5. Kubura is harassing people with constant editcounting and trying to proove that his has more rights than someother users who disagree him. At the same time, he strongly protested when an obvious troll (Marianne, its first edit was in community portal, taking Kubura's side) was blocked as obvious sockpuppet and troll. He even publicly admitted that he must defend "new" users who are on his side because, otherwise, they wouldn't be on his side.

My opinion and some facts known to wikipedia community:

  1. Kubura is known for being loyal to anyone who supports his views and he never admittes to be wrong.
  2. Kubura has very strong ties with Ex13, SpeedyGonsales (who was blocked by ArbCom for slendering other users outside wikipedia) and some other users, who defend him here (and everywere else, for the matter of fact).
  3. Kubura almost always assumes bad faith, he treats all complaints on his or his supporters' work as "harangue", and he frequently calls other users trolls, even those with 2 or 3 years of experience.
  4. Hr-wikipedia community is strongly divided by internal conflicts and many users and admins who would normaly react to such a blatant missuse of admin's rights decided to mind their own bussines, in fear of being accused of belonging to some "group".
  5. Kubura is known for his extreme language purism (with very frequent use of neologisms), nationalistic shovinism and intolerance for Serbs and Bosniaks.


My conclusion:

Kubura wrote many articles, has a lot of experience, and is very usseful user, but his adminship (that begun in October 2009) caused way too many conflicts on croatian wikipedia.

I propose revoking kubura's admin rights for at least 3 months. After that, if he wants, he might try to run a new election again. --Ante Perkovic 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done sysop rights removed for at least the duration of Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura after which i recommend re-election at hrwiki. --oscar 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"Kubura tried to sabotage the candidacy". What's this, Communism? Do we have to accept anyone with acclamation? Are we allowed to mention things that must be said about the candidate? Or it must be 100% support, like during Enver Hoxha's rule?
Further, your comments are bunch of claims. "It's so because I've said so". Kubura 12:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Pepsi Lite[edit]

Mr. Kubura is the best admin the Croatian language Wikipedia had ever had. People who can't write in the Croatian language shouldn't be writing articles in the Croatian language Wikipedia.--Pepsi Lite 09:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Please read again. -- Bojan  Talk  09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? User WizardOfOz is pissed off that they have voted for self-inflicted linguistic genocide, and later this became known in the Croatian media, and to his friends and colleagues.--Pepsi Lite 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No. The problem is that You aren't informed well or You are overlooking, deliberately or not, many other things: trolling, harassment, excessive use of admin powers, double standards... Wiktionary episode is marginal here. -- Bojan  Talk  14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about?
  1. Wikipedia in the Serbian language: 0 edits.
  2. Wikipedia in the Muslim language: 0 edits.
  3. Meta: 100 edits, and the guy can vote anyway he wants, and give a retarded (but truthful) explanation if he so desires. Although I would support GR request of Mr. Bosits, Mr. Kubara's vote is insignificant in the larger scheme of things.
  4. Mr. WizardOfOz states about themselves that they speak only German, Bosniac & English.--Pepsi Lite 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pepsi Lite. Why should I be pissed off of that? I would vote again the same way if we are talking about reasons for non b/h/s speakers. My other position you can see on the proposal for montenegrin wiki. Which "muslim" language do you mean linking to bs wiki? Perhaps ar? If it´s so then your link is wrong. in this case you should use :ar:.... Noting my language skills is not neccesery as i think. As i can see you have put en-5 and sr-4 on your en page. Should i ask you how can you understand the talk on croatian and the links where this is written (things you are talking about)? Take a look at this: just another user blocked for not speaking croatian. Then this: just a one of houndred or more personal attacks. But here he understand what i´m writing about. Just take a look at where he says: i can´t say someone who supports me "go home" or "if you supprt me i´m gonna block you". Thats something i can´t do. Noone would support me anymore. If you want to see the things we are talking above, just chose some of those and enjoy. --WizardOfOz talk 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I read all those with the help of Google translate, and I still don't see a problem. --Pepsi Lite 09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So, on scale from 1 to 5, your Serbian got 4 (that means that your Croatian is at least 3), but You used Google translate? OMG. -- Bojan  Talk  09:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish it was 0.--Pepsi Lite 10:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Pepsi, but from your comments is clear that you don't have any clue what is going on here and that you don't understand basic wiki(mp)edia rules. Any further discussion with you is pointless. -- Bojan  Talk  12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Mr. WizardOfOz if he wants to write in the Croatian language Wikipedia should state that that he writes and speaks Croatian, and start lobbying for the closure of the so called Bosnian language Wikipedia if he believes that Bosnian=Croatian language.--Pepsi Lite 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Dungodung[edit]

I'll try to keep this short. I've been familiarized with much of hrwiki's problems a long time ago and I've been following those problems (and consequences thereof) ever since. So, I'm aware of the state the Croatian Wikipedia is in (as a sidenote, I've temporarily taken over the ownership of their IRC channel, as there is no agreement over who the owner should be). This particular situation is a part of a bigger problem, but let's stay focused on this one. I'm familiar with Kubura's past transgressions and I am sad to say that so far, I have only seen chauvinism/xenophobia, ageism, attacks, harassment, unjustified deeds and (I daresay) trolling from him. In particular, this latest block of WizardOfOz (WoO) was completely unjustified and uncalled for. Even if WoO did something wrong on meta, which he didn't in my opinion, his status on hrwiki should be of no concern. Bokica's and Ante's explanations are spot on, so I won't elaborate on this. What I see as troublesome is the fact that most administrators are silently supporting his actions by not reacting against them. So, I suggest unblocking WoO, as there were no grounds whatsoever to block him in the first place, and then submitting Kubura to a confirmation/voting procedure, wherein community members would express their opinions regarding Kubura's past actions. --FiliP ██ 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with voting procedure is that Kubura's pals are trying to influence people outside wikipedia, and many are afraid to cast their vote in fear of retribution. WizardOfOz is just one example of such a retribution. I propose confirmation procedure, but with Special:SecurePoll. Question would be on croatian, of course. --Ante Perkovic 07:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ante, Write that on hr.wiki. "Kubura's pals are trying to influence people outside wikipedia". Where do you get the idea? Are you stalking them in their private life, so you know that?.
Things outside Wikipedia cannot be proven nor cannot be used in argumentation (otherwise we'd be talking about papers that flew in the face). By the way, Ante, I'm still waiting for your e-mails (that you've sent me) from Nov 27 and Dec 19, 2009. Post them on my talkpage on hr.wiki. Together with the titles.
Dungodung wrote: "I have only seen chauvinism/xenophobia, ageism, attacks, harassment, unjustified deeds and (I daresay) trolling ". That's a daring lie and rude personal attack, etiquetting.
With such words you called whole community that chose me for admin as "chauvinists/xenophobs, ageists, attackers, harassers". You've never been contributing on hr.wiki hr:special:contributions/Dungodung (total) and [27] (mainspace). How can you get a picture about me and hr.wiki from several edits? Your message here is daring trolling.
How dare you to call me chauvinist, xenophobe or ageist? Do you know what those words mean? Do you know that these were the rudest words ever told to me on Wikipemia's projects? How come that noone on Wikipedia's noted that, but you?
I see anti-Croat attitude at you. If you dislike my writings about Greater Serbian aggression on Croatia, Greater Serbianist crimes or you dislike that I've been disguising Greater Serbian propaganda with arguments, that's your problem. Don't use steward's position to attack me. In hr.wiki, only arguments work, not political pressure.
Dungodung shouldn't use Meta to avoid procedures on hr.wiki, just as he did on Meta, when he has unnecessarily run CU tools[28] when WizardOfOz had expressed his wish [29]. WizardOfOz had no hr.wiki.community approval to go to steward to require running of CU tools. Hr.wiki hasn't chosen you Dungodung for checkuser. This was daring disrespect of hr.wiki. community. There was no need at all to run the tools (targeted user only asked the questions "tell me, what do you think that CU's role is are, why do you find yourself as qualified to be CU", [30] [31] [32]).
If you dislike me, say that on hr.wiki. Explain that in Croatian language, when doing so. Just as admins on bs.wiki require on their wiki.
It's interesting why Dungodung hasnn't said a single word about WizardOfOz's attacks on admins, bureaucrats and checkusers on hr.wiki [33] [34] [35]. Kubura 04:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because I don't edit doesn't mean I don't follow. Edit count has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I don't have any anti-Croat sentiments and many Croats can attest to that. And just because no one else dared to say those words to you publicly, it doesn't mean that people don't mean them. Please, tell me, why did you vote against me in my steward elections? Was it because I am a Serb (your attitude towards people you block sure shows your chauvinism) or because I was 20 years old at the time (ageism)? Oh, and please don't bring my CU on hrwiki to this. As it was explained to you, stewards don't need community consensus for doing checks on wikis where there are no local CUs, so I didn't break ANY rule. And I didn't say anything about WizardOfOz's attacks because... well, there weren't any. --FiliP ██ 09:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's nice to see that you follow.
If you work on more projects, than it's impossible to follow properly.
Well, that same day I've voted for another Serb. Was that difficult to see in my contributions on Meta? It was my second edit ever on Meta [36]. First edit - my talkpage, my second edit ever on Meta - a vote for a Serb (at least I think he is) [37]. And that's chauvinism?
Please, don't feel hurt because you got a vote "oppose". Steward's functions are too big for a person that doesn't have life experience. It's too responsible function. I respect life experience and the maturity of a person. What's wrong with such opinion? That's not ageism, nor chauvinism.
Here's the reason for my attitude towards giving sysop functions to younger persons: [38], here [39], [40] [41] (do you need translation). Is this ageism? Or you disagree with that?
About CU: why you were in such a hurry? Hr.wiki'd choose it's CU's in few weeks, those edits wouldn't be lost for CU. Why you were bypassing hr.wiki? Don't you trust hr.wiki community? Anyway, Wikimedia is explicit about users' privacy and the usage of CU tools. You have your rights, but don't allow someone to make you someone's wish-fullfiller. You have those tools, it's you who "pushes the button". Don't allow anyone to manipulate with you. Rather don't use the tools. Someone might incite you to run the CU tools, but it's your name in the log.
Dungodung, do you know the meaning of the word "chauvinism"? Please, choose your words. Please, don't repeat somebody's words. I don't judge people by their origin. I cannot know somebody's nationality, I can only guess. Someone might pretend to be of certain nationality. Finally, I don't block nor attack people because of their origin. I block only the users that show attacking behaviour. I cannot know their origin. Take a better look: have I blocked every Serb or Bosniak that appeared on hr.wiki? I haven't. In fact, I had correspondence with several users that claim (or it seems) that are Serbs or Bosniaks. And that correspondence wasn't insult war, but cooperation. If you follow, as you say, than you'll know what I've just said. If I disagree with someone, that's not a reason to call me "chauvinist".
If you disagree with the content, you're welcome to comment on the talkpages and contribute in the articles, just like anyone. Dungodung, am I chauvinist because I've been writing about the Serbs that everyone forgot: the loyal Croatian Serbs that were brutally killed by greaterserbianists? Who else on Wikipedia wrote about them?
About "xenophobe": I had so much cooperation with users from abroad, that nooone has right to tell me such words. So much cooperation in the mainspace and articletalk area (not just on hr.wiki).
So, please, avoid the words like "chauvinist" or "xenophobe". That's etiquetting. You don't need that.
Another thing: Dungodung, have you noticed that you haven't said a thing about WizardOfOz's attacking behaviour on hr.wiki? These messages were harassing of those users. Have you seen any of users from hr.wiki doing the same on sr.wiki? Please, answer me on this one.
Sorry if my message was too long. Kubura 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice from You to show where did you cooperate with foreigners. True, you haven't blocked every foreigner from very simple reason - you are sysop for just 6 months. But when you had first opportunity, you blocked indefinetely. You did reacted very impusively: mocked user for one dot, forcing him to write on Croatian (it is very hipocritical from You cause - as yourslef admit - you don't treat all users equaly). Of cource, there is more examples of your "openness", but they are not violation of Wikimedia rules). Regarding wiktionary episode, in same interview that Wizard cited, proposer's true name was revealed to public. I'm sure that he didn't enjoyed in reading offensive comments against him. What is your opinion on that? -- Bojan  Talk  16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Thogo[edit]

As for the block of WizardOfOz, I want to ask Kubura to lay his/her cards on the table and in very short words answer some questions:

  1. What exactly is the reason for the block (diff links please!)?
  2. Why do you think the block needs to be indefinite?
  3. Who else took part in this decision?

If your block was justified you should easily be able to answer these questions. I did not see answers to that so far, only complaining about WizardOfOz that he opened cases against you and other people. Your statement above and also your statements to other users here does not explain anything. Your comments so far seem to me, as if you don't really have a reason to block, but you just felt annoyed by WizardOfOz, which would in turn mean that you abused your sysop tools. --თოგო (D) 12:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thogo, have you read what I've posted on hr.wiki? Everything is explained in long messages here [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].
Obviously I've put that effort invain. I gave those links also on Meta [48] (bottom of the message). Thogo, have you read at all the things I've posted here? Here's the answer on your third queston [49]. Please, don't ask the questions that were already explicitly answered on the very same page. 5 days ago.
Thogo, you're the last one to comment me about blocking someone forever.
I'm blocked on your homewiki project (de.wiki) indefinitely [50] (1 minute after reverting my edits) because certain group of users persistently want to deny and reduce Croatian cultural history. Those persons wanted/want to impose their personal attitude on the articles. You don't see abuse of admin tools there, Thogo, do you [51] [52] [53]? No discussion, just childish "It has to be my way". Here was my explanation and argumentation with links [54] (big part of the text is in English). I've posted that 11 days after the block. But that was invain. The block stayed.
When someone (an insignificant contributor in the mainspace) attacks several administrators, bureaucrats and checkusers on Wikipedia in Croatian, implicitly writes legal threat, than according to you, "it's no big deal", "you're overreacting". You even dare to say "abuse of tools".
But when an admin blocks forever the opponent on your homewiki project (Wikipedia in German), although the available online sources prove(d) him wrong, you haven't said a word about it.
Oh, sorry. Your project need another shame like this one on this page [55] [56] [57], because some groups of your project have cited (see how many admins reverted to that version) the source that fabricated blatant lie, source that made up story about the war and deaths that never existed. Kubura 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As a native Serbo-Croatian speaker, I can confirm that none of the links posted by Kubura actually answer Thogo's questions, and is instead the worst bunch of trolling I've seen in my life. (And I tell you that as someone who has extensively dealt with Kubura for ~ 3 years on both English and Croatian wikiprojects). As usual, Kubura utilizes every imaginable distraction, reasoning fallacy and slander, all concoted in meaningless verbiage of accusatory self-righteousness. Even in the very first link that Kubura provides above, he explicitely mentions WizardOfOz's meta comments as something that has "prevršilo svaku mjeru" (exceeded all bounds); in other works as something that has infuriated him to issue a hr.Wikipedia block . If that's not black-on-white evidence for a gross abuse of sysop tools, I don't know what is.
Of course, the true reason why WizardOfOz was blocked was to prevent him from voting against Kubura's cronies Roberta F. and SpeedyGonsales, who are soon running an RfA with their ArbCom block being lifted recently. With the newly proposed voting rules requiring 3/4 of supporting votes, they need to get rid of as much "foes" as possible ;)
Now that this is all over (for at least 3 months, I hope), perhaps Kubura can return to growing Croatian Wikipedia as well as his own edit count (in which he evidently takes much pride), by creating even more stubs on Uzbekistan field hockey players, or whatever it was that he was doing. --Ivan Štambuk 08:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ivan Štambuk, hr.wiki.community gave the opinion about you. You have a big dossier on your talkpage. You've been blocked for personal attacks, threats, belittleing, insults, arrogancy... [58]. Generally, you've been harassing the community (Maltretirao si zajednicu). Community concluded that [59] with 18:0 (17+proposer). Kubura 11:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, what dossier?! As far as I can recally, I was blocked indefinetely because "community" (IRC-canvassed clique of nationalist extremists under the control of SpeedyGonsales and Roberta F.) "voted" so (all occurring within couple of hours), after I intelectually humiliated them all on your very own Kafić. I did not violate any rule of conduct; instead it was me who was subject to molesting and ridicule (and of course, none of the admins didn't even bother to intervene). Anyone who can understand Serbo-Croatian language can see the related discussion for themselves. One can literally touch all the hatred and malevolence floating in the air (as well as their helplesness and panic when confronted with some real arguments).
On a related note, Kubura's response to me is another proof that his desyop was more then merited. This is a typical example how Kubura engages in "discussions": he tries to belittle, minorize, discredit or ridicule his opponent completely ignoring the actual topic. As if his ad-hominems somehow "invalidate" whatever it has been stated against him. --Ivan Štambuk 10:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Kubura for (not really) answering my questions and to Ivan Štambuk for clarifying certain things. The administrative reaction to Kubura's comments has already followed. Now, what about the block of WizardOfOz? I think it would be a good way towards more cooperation if either the community votes about the block (without blocking people beforehand ;) ) or if one of the Admins who are on Kubura's side of the community (SpeedyGonsales maybe?) would just lift the block. Hopefully, the hrwiki community can now go back to developing an encyclopedia (that's the goal, after all) instead of making community-internal politics. I think the community is small enough to have a chance to get back on the right spur. Also people with a different opinion can work together. The goal of making an encyclopedia is the common thing which glues the community together. And always before you write something to someone you don't agree with, look into a mirror, and try to answer the question whether or not you would tell the other person the same thing in the same words if you looked at them in person. Please keep these things in mind. --თოგო (D) 12:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. Auf dieser Seite werden auch gern Kommentare in Deutsch entgegengenommen, falls sich jemand da besser fühlt.

FYI Thogo: SpeedyGonsales is not a Sysop on hr.wiki. His rights has been removed by ArbCom (the reasons can be seen in my first posting). Also the ArbCom decision says that after his deblocking, he is suspended for a year of any administrative actions or rights. There is a voting on hr.wiki about new rules for sysop and ´crat ellection. Speedy is now talking about the consensus as the only way, but as there was voting to remove ArbCom and to deblock him, all of his group voted in support and consensus was not so important (20 support:18 oppose). This new voting is now stopped by User:Ex13 and as explanation he gives: we don´t need any rules, because stewards and GS are there for that. I want to note, that more than a half of community has allready vote and there is no consensus. The same user has also add a voting about whole changes of rules as: you have the opinion to vote against changing (wich was after that changed by User:MayaSimFan, a crat who started the voting to: pro or contra all changes) just to lead and show the way one group should vote. The next point is that Kubura is now attacking me, stewards and the hr.wiki users who have give a comment here, on the village pump without any sanctions. I don´t think that any of the admins wich are in the same group as Kubura will now deblock me after this request. The point is that there are other things on hr wiki which should be solved for first. --WizardOfOz talk 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, WizardOfOz. You're talking about hr.wiki, not about your behaviour on hr.wiki. Is this the topic about you and mine decision or about hr.wiki? You also haven't said a word about blatant ignoring of the decision of hr.wiki.community (24:5 voted for me to be the admin). But that hasn't stopped one user from Meta to violate the will of users from hr.wiki. Kubura 11:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Meta has the authority to "violate the will" of individual-language wikiprojects. This is where the discussion is suppose to continue when the individual project's problems cannot be solved internally. This happens when the community is too small, or when it becomes gridlocked with conflicting interests of equally powerful wiki-cabals. It's irrelvant how many supporting votes did your RfA have. If there's a resonable doubt that you abused your sysop privileges, and the community itself hasn't resolved the issue (you were neither reprimanded nor was the unwarranted block in question lifted by any of your sysop colleagues), then meta is the only place where the victim (WizardOfOz) can come to seek some kind of "justice". --Ivan Štambuk 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thogo, have you read my answer at all? [60] [61]?
I've already answered on your questions.
Reasons for the block are in these edits in hr.wiki [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. These links contain more diffs.
Second: why indefinite? WizardOfOz's attacking behaviour towards the admins and checkusers on hr.wiki. There're also the elements of trolling. He was insignificant contributor in the mainspace, so no loss for hr.wiki. Diffs are on his talkpage on hr.wiki [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73].
Third: who took part in this decision? For the third time: it was solely me.
Thogo, why do you find yourself as qualified to participate here? Will you answer that? Kubura 11:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need any qualification to participate here. But you need to justify your block. All of the links you gave are edits by yourself, not by WizardOfOz, so they just don't matter and my question is still unanswered. To say it in your words: Why do you find yourself as qualified to be an admin on hrwiki? --თოგო (D) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thogo, those links contain more diffs. Have you checked them? Please, if you're not willing to click on those diffs, don't perpetuate the discussion.
"Why do you find yourself as qualified to be an admin on hrwiki?"
I'm mature person with plenty of experience in editing Wikipedia. I'm not behaving impusively. I wait for weeks, if necessary, to be sure in my actions, so I can say that I've done something coolheaded. I've seen and been in many complex situations in Wikipedia, so I recognize many things before others. My homewiki community has recognized and was aware of all of that and therefore had confidence in me when they've given me the admin status. 24:5.
Thogo, I'm waiting for your answer about me being blocked on de.wiki. Kubura 12:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your links contain only diff links on Meta, none on hrwiki, so they don't matter at all. Please show misbehaviour by WizardOfOz on hrwiki. If he does something wrong on Meta it were not your part to deal with. --თოგო (D) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. you were blocked on dewiki for pushing your non-neutral POV, for not accepting any help or advice on that matter and for just bad quality of edits - and besides, you were not blocked by me but by someone who knows what they are talking about if it goes about the Balkans. But luckily your behaviour on dewiki is not the question here. What matters on this page is only your and WizardOfOz's behaviour on hrwiki and nothing else.
Thogo, regarding the diff links, you're blatantly playing dumb. You're persistently protracting the discussion with the questions that've already been answered several times. With such behaviour, you're harassing and exhausting me, disrespecting Meta and the participants of this RfC and you're disturbing the normal discussionflow. I've explicitly answered you on that question on March 15 [74] [75] (you were explicitly warned that your question was previously answered). Diffs were also given on March 12 [76] (bottom of the message) and on March 8 [77] (explicitly mentioning the section of Wizard's talkpage with explanations [78] and this [79].
Stewards must warn you. See my message above, my answer to you from 11:30, 17 March 2010 [80], I gave two times the same 6 diffs. On the diff that is from March 2 (04:09) [81], you have a bunch of diffs that are from hr.wiki (17 from hr.wiki, 3 from Meta).
Regarding my block on de.wiki: now you've drowned yourself. You've said that I was blocked on dewiki for pushing "my non-neutral POV". Interesting: Croatian, Bosniak and Serbian media confirm my writing, but someone outside Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia obviously finds himself more qualified than the local media. Please, read my message [82]. E.g. for Croatian singer Ivo Robić (google search "Ivo Robić" "hrvatski pjevač") [83], (google search "Ivo Robić" "hrvatski pjevač", country="BA") [84], (google search "Ivo Robić" "hrvatski pevač") [85]. But someone persistently removed "Croatian" with his POV "Yugoslav". Same case is with Croatian table tennis player Dragutin Šurbek. Admin even dared to remove my additional info [86], as if it was some kind of vandalism. Croatian media say that he's Croatian player[87], Serbian also (June 10 2007 there was a info on Serbian RTV [88]) [89] (Olympic Committee of Serbia: "Primorac je posle Dragutina Šurbeka i Antona Stipančića najtrofejniji hrvatski stonoteniser. - Primorac is after Dragutin Šurbek and Anton Stipančić Croatian table tennis player with the most tropheys won."). And you dare to support this blatant use of admin rights to block indefinitely the constructive user.
So, the media from whole former Yugoslavia was/is in accord with that (and me), but for some POV-pushers on de.wiki, that was "Kubura's lack of knowledge and non-neutral POV". And reason to block indefinitely. Your colleague got the explanation on June 10 2007 [90], but that has been blatantly ignored for 2 years 9 months 11 days. Admins and stewards, please take a look at this one. Kubura 10:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WizardOfOz, users of Croatian wikipedia clearly stated what they thought about our ArbComm (for which you show much sentiment as you are one of the makers of ArbCommn on hr:wikiand you are tied to it as "your work or your legacy" you almost wrote rules for ArbComm before you were user on hr wiki on which you wrote only 8 articles)users of hr:wiki also clearly stated what they think about proposition of rules saved on wiki by Maya, majority declined proposition.It is nice that you are taking care for hr:wiki and removing vandalisms, but stats are counting number of articles and you can measure some Wikipedia (among other criterias) by number of articles, so don't take this personally, but users value more users which are writing quality articles and in this way make wiki project better. Large portion of your edits on hr:wiki are in users talk namespace and in Wikipedia namespace, where you were encouraging conflicts and showed intolerance towards some users, forgetting rule What Wikipedia is not (same rule exist also on hr:wiki). User talk namespace edits are welcome when helping users, unfortunately your edits were not of this kind.--Sokac121 01:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the actual content contributed by Kubura are also talk page discussions. 95% of his edits are recategorizations, stubs on obscure topics (in order to pump up article count, to give false impression that Croatian Wikipedia is "bigger" = "better") or trivial orthographic corrections (to make the articles as distant as possible from the articles on bs/sr/sh pedias, which are often copy/pastes of each other). In fact, Kubura's talk page contributions are immense compared to his mainspace contributions.
This particular behavior of Croatian Wikipedia Community - valuing user opinions on the basis of their respective author edit count - is very disturbing. They're proactively filtering new users on the basis of their ideological convictions by blocking them under trivial excuses, so the only ones who are entitled (in their perspective) to have an opinion about any issue at all are the veteran contributors themselves. --Ivan Štambuk 11:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ivan Štambuk, this is belittleing of my work. I translate big articles and also small articles. Many times my work was copied and translated on bs. and sr.wiki. They saw no problem in my work. Štambuk, this is your dossier [91], [92], [93]. See how many rules have you broken. See your block log [94]. Uninformed user might find me biased, but you've been warned by user Ante Perkovic also [95], user that criticized me on this very page. Kubura 11:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No Kubura, you are the one regularly belittling everybody else's work, as many other participants have already mentioned. Do I really need to translate a bunch of your comments to prove that? Kubura creating X stubs in this month, Kubura patrolling Y edits in that month...c'mon! No, I am simply remarking on the real status of your edit count, of which you boast and which some use in your defense. During my not so brief stay at hr Wikipedia I haven't seen a single article of yours which was at least C-class quality. I'm strongly convinced that your only interest in editing Wikipedia is in promoting hard-core nationalist agenda, among which is the absurd "race" in article count with Bosnian and Serbian pedias.
And do spare us of your chop-logic ad-hominems, OK? I've already responded to your heinous accusations above. You are probably not aware of it, but my (unusally silent) departure from Croatian wikiprojects 2 years ago initiated a chain of events that eventually got us all here today, and if I must add it's really good to observe the increasing number of "normal" netizens finally seeing through your clique's petty lies and manipulative propaganda. The more you firmly entrench yourself, the more it's obvious to everybody that we're dealing with incurable form of power-hungry ego disease, which is causing alarmingly high rates of departure of top editors, turning what is supposed to be a noble knowledge-spreading project into an ugly battlefield of presumptuous self-centered individuals propagandizing ethnic hatred and intolerance. My "dossier" is clean, and it would be advised that you finally stopped mounting personal attacks against me which have nothing to do with the discussion, otherwise I'd have to defend myself by exposing your dirty underwear hidden beneath it too (e.g. how I got blocked for the first time for 1 month by your pal SpeedyGonsales after placing {copyvio} on an obviously copy-pasted article [which Roberta F. claimed was "translated from Serbian to Croatian" o_O)] under the absurd accustion of "obstructing the Wikipedia", and how my IP-posted comments in Kafić were swiftly censored and entire IP ranges blocked within minutes). Save that mode of arguing to your home wikiproject, because folks don't buy it here. --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

dear thogo, you asked 1. What exactly is the reason for the block (diff links please!)?

fyi today i saw an edit with this difflink from one of his contribs today. in the passage "Trajno sam blokirao samo one za koje je očigledno bilo da su shvatili hr.wiki kao mjesto gdje će se izdivljavati, napadati i uznemiravati suradnike i destabilizirati zajednicu, a onda su na svojim matičnim projektima glumili finu gospodu. Kao i suradnike za koje je bilo očigledno da su im jedina uređivanja na hr.wiki bila provokacije, propagandizam i napadi. Ona sitna uređivanjca kojim su pokušali zamaskirati svoje loše namjere, nisu me zavarala. Nisam naivan. Shvati da imamo nečije lutke koje štetno djeluju (uglavnom pišu velikosrpsku propagandu po hr.wiki), a ne pišu nigdje drugdje. Imam razloga sumnjati da djeluju drugdje po inim Wikipedijskim projektima pod nekim drugim imenom." (some of) his motives are disclosed. very best, oscar 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the above paragraph, Kubura is essentially saying that he's permanently blocking everyone whom he perceives as "troubling other editors" and "destabilizing the community", as well as everyone whose only edits are "provocations, propaganda and attacks". In other words, you can't criticize him or his fellows, or make contentious edits (whatever he perceives as "Greater Serbian propaganda") unless you have a couple of hundreds written articles, at the penalty of being blocked permanently. It should be noted that this is not a matter of actual policy but of his personal, subjective estimate, and is moreover in direct violation of "assume good faith" principle. Kubura's reasoning for permablocking does not require making particular bad edits at all: only the apparent ill-motives justified behind the vaguely defined phrases such as "harassment of community". --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by croq[edit]

Well, there are users who seem to think that Wikipedia is something like Facebook or stuff like that: The biggest part of their user contribution are talks and this kind of activities. According to user contributions you can see that a load of the users on hr wikipedia do belong to this cathegory of users. One of the rare guys who is a real WORKER, soembody who creates, and does so many things that are necessary for to improve the quality and the growth of hr wiki is Kubura. If you compare what those people who are attacking Kubura were producing during the last months and what Kubura is doing since years the difference is extremely significant. The decision, was wrong. Very wrong and a bad signal. Have a nice day --Croq 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Croq, can I ask You something, if You have courage to answer me? Do You think that someone's argument are less serious if they are less focused on writing articles (this is called w:argumentum ad hominem)? Do you think that stubs on unknown sportsmen will improve anything except number of articles (wiser guys use bots to massively add content: towns, stars, animals, plants, etc.) What is your opinion regarding Kubura's molesting of users from Serbia and Bosnia cause they don't speak Croatian, while in the same time he tolerate so called Montenegrin language (we concluded that Montenegrin is identical to Serbian language)? Do you think that such user is appropriate for such responsible task? What is your opinion on situation when an administrator use his powers to indefinite blocks someone with whom he is engaged in content dispute, after the admin provoked that user? -- Bojan  Talk  23:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Two days have passed and we didn't get any answers, not from Croq or anyone else, just as I expected. Users who are defending Kubura avoid to give answers, they just talk about Kubura as creator of articles and sovereignty of their Wikipedia. WizardOfOs tried to solve problem by following hr.wiki rules, but he faced wall of silence (some users did object, but Wizard is still blocked). Shakespeare would say Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Btw, Meta as the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects has jurisdiction over all Wikimedia projects. Perhaps global ArbCom is needed as the highest juridical body. -- Bojan  Talk  06:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the introduction of a global arbcom for wikis which don't have their own one, is planned and partially in preparation, but at the moment the discussion is a bit dormant. ;) Find the relevant discussions on Global arbitration committee and its talk page. --თოგო (D) 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BokicaK, tell us more about your edit, in which you've removed that Arkan's not war criminal [96]. WizardOfOz 'll be very happy about that. Go tell that on bs.wiki.
BokicaK, don't belittle my contributions in the mainspace. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, it's for the articles. Kubura 12:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that I said that Arkan did terrible things, but you should not call him war criminal explicitly (from reasons explained above). Neutral contributor should just list events in which he took part. I wouldn't mention your contributions if You hadn't belittled contributions of your opposers (as you always do). -- Bojan  Talk  13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
@Bojan, I am not intersted in wasting time here with a never ending discussion with you. You are trying to provocate, but wikipedia is not the right place for never ending discussions. For me it´s wasting time, I prefer work on articles..--Croq 05:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem if you don't wanna, but then don't attack us on local village pump. Btw, it appears that your definition of provocateur is: provocateur is one with whom I disagree, who has less edits then me, on whose question I can't answer, etc. Defend Kubura by following wikipedia and wikimedia rules or by pointing where exactly Wizard breached rules of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but not showing your loyalty to him, it disgraces you, too. -- Bojan  Talk  08:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BokicaK, has Croatian police ever issued any arrest warrants to Interpol regarding Arkan's case and why?
If you don't know, police issues arrest warrants after they got the court's/judge's warrant/decision. Kubura 12:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Two days have passed and we didn't get any answers."
BokicaK, we're not chatting. Questions are being asked, some of those are serious questions, but also we have pestering here. Also, everybody interested needs to translate those questions and answers into English. Don't expect answers promptly. People have their private lives outside Wikipedia. People are not available "on the button", whenever you snap your fingers or similar.
Last but not the least: Wikipedia is not a courtroom. Neither a police hearing.
Wikipedija nije sudnica niti policijsko saslušanje, niti mjesto gdje će netko otresati svoje komplekse i frustracije na meni. Još vam samo nedostajedu jaka svjetla da mi ih usmjerite u lice pa da me cijelu noć saslušavate i izmarate na smjenu. Nađite drugoga kojeg ćete šikanirati sa metodama policijskog ispitivanja u stilu "ne zanima mene to što si ti to već odgovorio, postavljat ćemo ti beskonačno isto pitanje dok ne dobijemo odgovor koji želimo".
Nisam došao na Wikipediju da bi se pasji čopor iživljavao na meni, niti za trpiti mobbing od strane zlonamjernika koji zloporabe Metu da bi zaobilazili hr.wiki koju se ovo izravno tiče i da bi samovoljno nametnuli svoju volju zajednici projekta na kojem uopće ne surađuju. Jer je očigledno da prozvani suradnik hr.wiki (ja) ima potporu svoje matične zajednice i da bi ti zlonamjernici ondje (na hr.wiki) bili očigledna manjina. Kubura 12:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So you had time to gave me a speech, but not to answer on my questions? Please, stop playing innocent boy, I won't play your game. It is typical distraction from You. Mobbing? Don't make me laugh. You are executor and accomplice in some of worst mobbing case on Wikimedia (stated above). You have support of few users, but are You sure that after this you have support of majority? Meta is neutral ground and desirable knowledge of English makes it idiot-free. Regarding Arkan... I don't know did Croatian or any police issue any arrest warrants (Hague tribunal did), but it is irrelevant, how many times I should repeat that is violation of NPOV. And tell me, why did your colleague do same in article on en:Ante Pavelić? Yugoslav police issued many arrest warrants for Pavelić, and if he is not war criminal, then I don't know who is. And as I said, it is (probably true) personal judge, but not fact. And focus on accusations on violation of sysop right, harassment, trolling by You. If you want discuss me, no problem, but do in somewhere else (e.g. Rfc/BokicaK), but first you have to find serious arguments. We are still expecting your answers on our questions: where exactly Wizard attacked someone? Use your free time to answer on them. -- Bojan  Talk  15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That edit of Vodomar is beyond belief. Whitewashing Croatian version of Hitler like that....it's an embarassment to the entire wiki. Of course this is nothing when compared to some other articles, e.g. the one on Vjekoslav Luburić who is being portrayed as a ridiculously positive historical figure. This is a major issue with all the Balkanic pedias - fabrications of history, war criminals being celebrated as noble freedom-fighters, undue emphasis placed on domestic sources (on Croatian Wikipedia they openly endorse this as a policy - Croatian sources always have a precedence over foreign sources!)... It's very misleading to draw generalized conclusions from selected edits of such diaspora folks (croq, Vodomar), because they're not representing the opinion of the majority of common people living in the country. A person who is interested in writing a 20k article on a Nazi camp commander must have some kind of bias towards him. On big and supranational pedias this biases cancel out because there is an equal number of positive- and negative-minded editors on any given contentious topic. On small and nation-centered pedias there is no such balance, and it's reasonable to expect major NPOV issues on every article touching in some kind of National Truth. There is a whole bunch of articles on Croatian Wikipedia that I'm sure the editors from Serbian Wikipedia would object to (most of which are "preemptively protected"), as well as vice versa, but sadly none do. --Ivan Štambuk 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This Vodomar's edit is OK because it is in accordance with NPOV: you don't have to say explicitly; just provide undeniable facts and let readers to conclude is someone good or bad. I agree with your last sentence. -- Bojan  Talk  12:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bojan, I don't understand why do you care about the content of the Croatian language Wikipedia. Croats are now NATO allies, and if they want to glorify Hitler, then so be it.--Pepsi Lite 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Should I answer such question? -- Bojan  Talk  13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just read the statement of Ivan Stambuk "It's very misleading to draw generalized conclusions from selected edits of such diaspora folks (croq, Vodomar), because they're not representing the opinion of the majority of common people living in the country..." Well, that´s true I do not represent anybody´s opinion here. I don´t know whose opinion you are representing, but your statement sounds very strange... yes strange. ----Croq 13:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by WizardOfOz[edit]

Da es mi leichter ist, diesmal in Deutsh (Kubura hat auch de-2).
Ich verurteile in keinster Weise die Änderungen an den Artikeln die der Kubura bisher gemacht hat. Ich hatte mit ihm noch nie einen Editkonflikt, im gegenteil: wir haben sogar über verbesserungen an einem oder anderem Artikel gesprochen. Da hat er mich noch verstanden.
Der Fakt ist:

  • Ich wurde wegen meiner Aktion auf Meta blockiert.
  • Der Kubura hat es zweimal so begründet, einmal im IRC und einmal in der ersten Ändxerung meiner Diskussionsseite auf hrwiki kurz nach dem Block.
  • Alles andere wurde danach hinzugefügt, als ich ihn bereits gewarnt habe dass ein Block auf der hrwiki wegen Meta nicht durchgehen wird.
  • Als Begründung werden meine Äusserungen die schon Monate und Wochen zurückliegen genommen.
  • Er wirft mir persönliche Angriffe vor, ohne einen einzigen nachzuweisen, im weiteren stellt sich für mich die Frage warum ich dann nicht vor monaten blockiert wurde?
  • Seine Äusserungen hier sind reine Glorifizierung seiner Edits. Mag sein dass er einer der aktivsten auf der hrwiki ist, was ich nicht bestreite, aber hier geht es nicht um seine Edits sondern um die unüberlegte und unbegründete Aktion als er mich blockierte.
  • Das einzige was er in diesen ganzen Tagen hier beigetragen hat, sind trollische Wiederholungen seiner Statistik.
  • Ich würde ihn bitten endlich die Regeln klar zu legen gegen die ich verstossen habe und weswegen er mich geblockt hat.

Seine ganzen Postings bisher, zeigen nur das ich im Recht bin und wegen nichts auf der hrwiki blockiert wurde. Da ich von seinen Handlangern (die mich jetzt auf der hrwiki durch den Dreck ziehen) keine Deblockierung erwarten kann, würde ich einen der Stewards bitten dies durchzuführen. Ich werde zur Zeit auf der hrwiki öffentlich angegriffen, ohne jägliche Möglichkeit mich zu wehren. Entweder findet die ganze Diskussion bis zur Lösung hier statt, oder mir wird die Möglichkeit gegeben auf der hrwiki an der Diskussion die mich betrifft teil zu nehmen. Danke im Voraus. --WizardOfOz talk 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nur eine kleine Frage: Ärgert es Dich and der Sperrung, daß Du nun keine neuen Artikel schreiben kannst oder daß Du nicht diskutieren kannst. Deine Beiträge bestehen zu mindestens 95 % aus Diskussionsbeiträgen. Ist wiki für Dich in erster Hinsicht ein Diskussionsportal oder ein Informationsmedium? Um was geht es Dir? Geht es Dir "ums Recht haben", Streit (wer sich auf Recht beruft, sucht Streit) oder willst Du konstruktive Artikelarbeit? Was Bedeutet wiki für Dich? --Croq 05:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Eine kleine Antwort: was Wikipedia für mich bedeutet, muß ich mit mir selber ausmachen und nicht mit dir oder mit jemandem anderen. Was meine statistik betrifft die du dem Kubura folgend hier anführst, auch dieser Benutzer hat um die Hälfte weniger Edits als ich. So jetzt mal von der Statistik weg: was mich ärgert ist der Zustand der Sperre. Sie ist bis jetzt noch immer unbegründet, es wurden keine Regelverletzungen angeführt und als einzige Begründung gilt noch immer meine Aktion auf der Meta. Was mich weiters ärgert sind die persönlichen Angriffe im Café der hrwiki, gegen ich mich nicht wehren kann. Sie werden von mehreren Benutzern immer wieder gepostet, ohne jägliche Sanktion! Ich aber, wurde (wie in späteren Änderungen der Sperrgründe angeführt) wegen solcher gesperrt (auch wenn es sie nie gab). Jetzt sitze ich da, werde von dir und anderen auf der hrwiki durch den Dreck gezogen und darf nicht antworten. Leichtes Spiel für die "Führungstreue linie der Benutzer". Die anderen die sich hier geäußert haben, werden gleich wie ich bloßgestellt und zitiert. Du hattest mindestens den Mum hierher zu kommen und deine meinung zu posten, rechne ich dir hoch an. Jedoch die anderen die mir hintergehung der hrwiki regeln vorwerfen, trauen sich das hier nicht zu posten, ausser der Kubura, der sowieso wieder mal einen Angriff von Bosniaken auf die hrwiki sieht. Ich meine den gleichen der mich verwarnte kroatisch zu schreiben weil er mich sonst nicht versteht, auch nur weil ich zwei "Fremdwörter" benutzt habe. Von dort an, habe ich nichts mehr auf der hrwiki gepostet oder editiert. Andererseits werden von Kubura Benutzer wie du toleriert, die es nicht mal schaffen einen ganzen Satz ohne grammatikalische Fehler zu schreiben, oder als Muttersprache kroatisch angeben, während sie nicht mal in der lage sind die gleiche zu lesen. Naja es wird halt mit zweierlei Maß gemessen. Was die hintergehung der hrwiki Regeln die mir auch vorgeworfen wird betrifft, hier sind die gleichen:
  • Die Meinung eines andern Admins einholen (gerne, aber wie wenn ich nicht mal Mail verschicken kann)
  • RfC auf der hrwiki starten (habe ich gemacht, wurde mittlerweile ohne Konzensus geschlossen und archiviert... andererseits gab es lt. Kubura auch andere involvierte Admins die er nicht nennen wollte, wie konnte ich dann ehrliche neutrale Meinung erwartzen wenn mich der, der mich geblockt hat auch richtet?)
  • Letzte Möglichkeit ist Meta (herzlich willkommen, das ist nämlich hier!)
Nun da ich nur mehr durch den Dreck gezogen werde auf der hrwiki ohne fairerweise antworten zu können, wäre es nett wenn einer der Admins dem Vorschlag von Thogo folgen würde. Wenn nicht (kein wunder, sind die gleichen in den persönlichen Angriffen selbst beteiligt), habe ich nur die Möglichkeit dies von den Stewards zu verlangen, worum ich auch auf diesem Wege bitte. --WizardOfOz talk 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wizzard:Na ja, wenn ich nicht mal meine Meinung sagen darf... Beim kurzen überfliegen Deiner Äußerung wirfst Du mir vor daß -ich dich durch den Dreck ziehen soll", etwas von FÜHRUNGSLINIE faselst Du da auch, sehe ich da auch, nicht in der Lage sei mal eben Deine edits anzuklicken (was ich ab un zu mache um zu sehen mit wem ich es zu tun habe) habe ich nur eine Bemerkung: Streite am besten Dir selbst. Bei Dir ist nicht nicht im geringsten der Wille zur enzyklopädischen Zusammenarbeit erkennbar... --Croq 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sicher darfst. Nicht desto trotz kann ich auf deine "Meinung" nicht antworten. Ich mag es andererseits nicht wieder hierher ziehen da es nicht der Gegenstand dieser Anfrage ist. BTW, nimm dir etwas mehr Zeit beim Schreiben. --WizardOfOz talk 18:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Stewards: Ich werde zur Zeit von Kubura im Cafe der hrwiki (village pump) immer wieder attackiert ohne irgendeiner Art von Sanktionen. Die Admins schauen zu und ich kann nicht antworten. Seine Aussagen in Klartext:

  • Ich provoziere und habe mir Freundschaften auf billige Weise gekauft.
  • Bin ein Troll.
  • Will einen Putsch auf der hrwiki verursachen.
  • Ich benutze Meta um andersdenkende zu beseitigen.

Im weiteren hat sich hier sowieso herausgestellt dass auf der hrwiki vieles falsch läuft. Nicht desto trotz, war das Thema meiner Anfrage auch meine Deblockierung. Wie es scheint kommt jetzt Bewegung in die anderen Probleme der hrwiki. Ich aber, kann mir jeden Tag neue Attacken auf der hrwiki ansehen, ohne irgendwas dagegen unternehmen zu können: [97] [98]. Kann ihn bitte jemand stoppen oder mich deblockieren damit ich mich auch Äussern kann? --WizardOfOz talk 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nee Wizzard, auf der hr wiki kann jeder normal arbeiten, wenn er will. Keiner wird dabei in irgendeiner Weise behindert oder gestört. Eigentlich läuft es nicht falscher als auf anderen Wikis. Nur haben wir dort leider viele Nervensägen und relativ wenig Mitarbeiter die Artikelarbeit leisten. Diese Nervensägen verwickeln andere Leute mit ihren nie enden wollenden Diskussionen und das Kernproblem ist daß leider viele Leute auf diese Diskussionen eingehen die Artikelarbeit vernachlässigen. Es ist nur traurig daß einer der fähigsten Mitarbeiter (Kubura) jetzt von Die, dessen Artikelarbeit gleich null ist auf diese Weise belästigt wird.--Croq 13:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=WizardOfOz&lang=hr&wiki=wikipedia http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Kubura&lang=hr&wiki=wikipedia

comment was added by 78.1.126.179 [99]

Please explain what the number of edits tells us about the justification of the block. Do you think that someone with more edits has any kind of dominance over someone with fewer edits? --თოგო (D) 23:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Thogo:Kubura explained with so many difflinks etc. pp. why he blocked Wizzard. I guess that this is just to ilustrate the "who is doing what" on this project. --Croq 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User:Aradic-es[edit]

I just wanted to say the following thing: blocking forever WizardOfOz might not be necessary! Kubura might have overreacted! but it is also overracting desysoping him beacase of that. it is illegal,against procedure etc.

Not to mention that admins elsewhere used to do much worse things.--Anto 13:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary moratorium on polls regarding adminship on hrwikipedia[edit]

As you have seen, the adminship of one user was forcibly removed by a steward as a consequence of the RfC on meta. It has been decided that stewards want to facilitate your polls on adminship by providing a Special:SecurePoll for hrwikipedia. This will be implemented asap, under the condition, that no polls on adminship will be started in the meantime, neither will any admin be appointed during this period. We hope to help you solve the problems with this technical assistance. oscar 23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC) posted on hr:Wikipedija:Kafić at midnight there as well

As there are a lot of sockpuppets on hr Wikipedia, Special:SecurePoll will enable them to rule a hr wiki, circumventing consensus. In ideal world where every user of Wikipedia would have only one account on wiki, Special:SecurePoll would be ideal solution. In real world, it is actually motivating users to start making sockpuppets.
Secondly, I thought that every wiki project can decide for itself. This is second precendent where stewards decide instead of community of hr Wikipedia. First was Oscar desysoping admin Kubura, against decision of 4 admins of hr wiki. There are problems on hr wiki indeed, but is this a way things should be solved? WMF board must discuss this, out of at least two reasons, first is that we have situation kind of alike that is on ru Wikipedia, and how to avoid it in future (if that is possible at all), and second is how far stewards can go helping project in need, are they actually allowed to make things worse...? SpeedyGonsales 23:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not only named SecurePoll because you can vote there non-publicly, but also because sockpuppet votes are easy to detect. --თოგო (D) 23:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
sockpuppet votes are easy to detect. How? Can SecurePoll detect proxies, VPN's etc? If not, it's security reaches only as far as to keep anonimity of voters, but sockpuppets are NOT disabled/detected. SpeedyGonsales 23:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet problem could be easily solved by raising voting rights limit to 500 or 1000 contributions in main namespace (now, it's just 100). I did some statistics calculation and I can say that, in average, only cca 5% to 10% of users who regulary vote fall into this category (up to 500/1000 edits). Great mayority of our regular voters have years of wikipedia experience and a few thousant constributions. Be taking away voting rights for "newbies", some small number of real voters would be left without it rights. There is no reason to believe that this could influence the final percentages of PRO and CON votes.
On the other side, this would significantly reduce number of sockpuppets with voting rights.
Average total number of votes in our polls is between 30 and 40. Extremely skilfull and keen sockmaster could make 1 or 2 socks in 1000+ edits category, at worst and couldn't possible influence the final result.
There are a few more things that are now possible, but will be made impossible with SecurePoll:
  • Organising voting in a way that 6 or 7 PRO-voters know about it beforehand, so thay can organise quick 7:0 lead, which would discourage CON voters from voring against or at all
  • Sheep voting, where people vote Pro, just to stay in good terms with the future admin (unfortunately, this is VERY important on hr wiki)
  • Harassing people (in and outside wikipedia) who voted against the will of harasser
BTW, Speedy, you (unlike me) recently voted against raising voting rights limit from 100 to 250 edits. Right? --Ante Perkovic 10:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet problem could be easily solved by raising voting rights limit to 500 or 1000 contributions in main namespace Yeah right. I saw not one user (meaning 5-10 presumed sockpuppets) making dummy edits in main namespace of zero quality lately, from User:Do dna onward.
BTW, Speedy, you (unlike me) recently voted against raising voting rights limit from 100 to 250 edits. Right? BTW, I voted against voting proposal pushed on community without taking into account suggestions or opinions of other users, or in other words - I voted for consensus against majority voting process when important things like new Wikipedia rules are at stake. SpeedyGonsales 15:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my bad English (ich spreche Deutsch viel besser, aber Speedy [100] und Ante sprechen, nach eigenen Angaben, diese Sprache kaum, so versuche ich auf Englisch). I have supported SecurePol on hr.wiki and was attacked immediately [101]. After that I support it even stronger. I think that is a good idea, because everyone can vote without a scare of trubles (as Ante says, and i full agree with him). I have give my opinion on hr.wiki and was immidiately attacked. Wizard may do perhaps some mistakes (errare humanum est), but not even close to be blocked indefinitly. --Flopy 21:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
and was attacked immediately - you didn't give diff link, but link to discussion. You were not attacked, but users wrote their objections to SecurePoll. Or users are not allowed to write their opinion if it differs from yours? I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you do not differentiate attack from legal remarks, or discussion. SpeedyGonsales 13:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
SecurePoll can easily detect sockpuppets, yes, because it integrates Checkuser-interface in the admin-interface. Laaknor 22:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Laaknor.
Users with CU tools and SecurePoll might detect inexperienced users (that've engaged in abusive sockuppetry) only. Only them.
But what about sockpuppeteers that know how to game the system, that know how to fool the system? What about those that access Wikipedia from universities, faculties, schools, public libraries, internet clubs etc.? What about piggyback riders? What about meatpuppets? These are easy ways to trick the CU tools.
If those votes remain hidden, community won't see anything.
If community sees the strange votes of users that behave strangely, community'll start to ask questions. We have the cases of users that register, remain calm for months, and then have very irregular edit pattern: few edits, few weeks or months of calm and then in 2 days they make 250 edits (we had such users!!!), and then the calm follows. That way bypass every editcount limitations.
See this case ([102] 500 edits in 8 days (see the calm before [103]), in less than 2 days he made 250 edits [104]. Kubura 10:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You will be able to do the same in relation to SecurePoll, as you would be able to see who would vote there, too. Your community will be able to object on votes suspected for sockpuppeting, as well as your CUs will be able to investigate suspected sockpuppets and to report it to stewards to remove those votes. --Millosh 16:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura, but misconduct of User:WizardOfOz[edit]

I'm sorry for this time distance between my first and this comment on subject, but I had no idea that things can be(come) so misrepresented as here is the case.

I'll try to explain it by showing you a timeline:

I asked for explanation, and got nothing: ...sometimes tough decisions need to be taken along the way.... I fully agree that tough decisions has to be made, but they have to be based on something. That something is not present here.

Surprises are still coming, Oscar's edit on hr wiki of 00:00, 19th March 2010 Temporary moratorium on polls regarding adminship on hrwikipedia

I expected that some sound explanation will be given why Kubura's rights are revoked, but something utterly different is happening, Oscar is revoking one admins rights based only on this writing of Ante Perkovic, problematic, conflict user with longtime history of personal attacks on Kubura, and opinions of 4 admins of hr Wikipedia are totally disregarded. It seems that opinion of one conflict user is more important than opinion of 4 admins of hr Wikipedia.


Then I read Stewards policy: Stewards do not make decisions, such as whether a user should (or should not) be promoted. Their task is to implement valid community consensus. If there are any doubts as to whether an action should or should not be performed, stewards should not act unless it is an emergency situation requiring immediate action or there are no active local users to do it. Stewards should always be neutral. They can vote in elections, but when executing the result of the election the steward has to act according to the result, even if they disagree.

I see that valid community opinion (opinions of 4 admins) is disregarded, there were doubts (as this RFC is far from reaching some conclusion), and steward in this case doesn't appear as neutral, but is making actions that can not be deemed necessary.

I asked what can be done, and got answer (not literally): "Give us another possible explanation, with difflinks". So I took some time, and difflinks are here. There are no 2 or 3 difflinks, as I wanted not only to show that user WizardOfOz broke the rules, for what he is justly blocked. I wanted to show that user WizardOfOz sometimes tried to help, with more or less success, but also that his work and words are not consistent, and that he sometimes states ridiculous statements, and when it is pointed out to him, he takes it back. Unfortunately, this false statements are pointed to whole hr Wikipedia community, so it is hard to explain how he managed to make such false accusations. I do not know quality of his work on meta, but on hr wiki he merits a block.

Notice: as user WizardOfOz previous name was Seha, sometimes in logs his edits are signed as Seha, sometimes maybe he is by mistake called only Wizard, but all three names designate User:WizardOfOz

Information

{{{1}}}


From above, it is evident that user WizardOfOz merits a block, one permanent, and a few ranging from one week to one month.

Why stewards in short term of 7 days concluded that Kubura's admin rights should be revoked, why 5 days later they impose moratory on admin elections on hr wiki and SecurePoll without community consensus totally eludes me.

I am fully aware that this is a bad precedent, and I'm asking all good willing people to reconsider this issue, decisions made and correct it as hastily as it can be. SpeedyGonsales 13:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Honestly, from Your post I don't see any serious misconduct by Wizard, and few things that You said only go in his favor. On the other hand, Your post further incriminate Kubura (not assuming good faith (belittling opponent's contributions, focusing on person rather than arguments)). Even if we agree that Wizard did behave against Wikipedia rules, same treatment should be applied on all users. Then, I'm afraid, hr.wiki community should block Kubura, You and few other users for violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and, the most important, for posting personal information in the news article. And I don't know why are you making noise of this? Kubura brought himself in this position by avoiding to give explicit answer. Treat local Wikipedia community as district court, and Meta as supreme court. Until Global ArbCom is established, final decision will make local community by voting of confidence. Knowing facts about Kubura's behavior (double standards, disobeying few basic Wikipedia pylons (AGF, NPOV), etc), I think that it will be disgrace for hr.wiki to keep him as administrator, but that is your problem. -- Bojan  Talk  18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can also just say thank you Speedy for translating and describing me. It could be better if you translate also the other parts and not just out of context, but this is also fine. So here we go:

  • Your intro: Why I have made this request here is because of Kubura´s statments between 1th and 7th, where he is talking about "others" who are involved in the block without naming them. If "others" are the same sysops who later answered with their "neutral opinion", i can´t expect that they are neutral. But that was posted on the top of the RfC. "Valid community opinion" is not a meaning of two admins, which are possibly involved in block (there are not 4 admins with block for infinite, but two, the comments of others are posted in the top of the RfC, 2 pro, 2 contra, 1 means that the block till infinity is not the right way and i should solve the problem with Kubura, 1 means that till infinity is not right and that there were others which have not get such block for "more reasons")
  • The part about ArbCom is commented by you, and true as you was one of those on IRC which have accept it.
  • Part about admins are not better than others: it´s still my opinion.
  • Lies about "just admin can nominate others for admin flag is not a lie ´couse i didnt know that there is other way before others informed me. After that I appologize it. It´s a normal way if you make a mistake or not?!?
  • That decision should be maded by community and not by me or meta was a try to stimulate you to do something about problems you have there. About my right to vote: at that moment i didn´t have it by the rules. Admins never blocked other admins was a comment about blocking each other in dispute. In meantime, i saw it on other projects.
  • About "personal attack": It was my posting on your talk page after our discussion on skype. You have open my eyes wide as I tought you are interested in solving hrwiki problems and you have show me the way you do it usualy. In my opinion, you are still not trustworthy, and that is not personal attack, but my conclusion after all hours of midnighttalk we done on skype.
  • The rules about archiving own talk page: take a look at User talk:Bastique and read the first sentences. There is a history for such cases. Even if I remove the content, everything is there.
  • My nick on skype was just used for conversatin with you. You also know my realname as everyone who ever recived a mail from me. I have nothing to hide as you have :).
  • HR constitution and protection of post: where i have broke it? Log of IRC I posted above? Ok, if that is what you mean, you can proceed it to Kubura to go the way of jurisdiction. In that case I am glad if he do it :).
  • Legal threats and lies: was explained few times in my postings above.
  • Category:Users that should be blocked: as i saw his explanations, i´ve appologize. What is wrong about that?!?
  • Redirect of users talk page: If you read this link (in german) you will understand. It was a warning for user which posts: I DON`T UNDERSTAND YOUR LANGUAGE SO PLEASE REMOVE THE WELCOME TEMPLATE, and that for few times. The redirect was maded after my explanation to same user not to use such words and he tells me that he just want to have a redirect. Once more: there is a history of talk.
  • Tolerance: User:Bugoslav should have been blocked after all warnings and POV edits. But he is still not blocked... yes it´s tolerance. User:Sokac121 was warned to write on bosnian and not croatian language. Yes it´s tolerance, ´couse on hrwiki he would be blocked after first warning.
  • CU request outside of hrwiki by Speedy: It was at least fishing and the CU have done it.
  • Semiprotection of Village pump: In my opinion not necessery, the IPs hasn´t vandalize but just take a point against other users. That is why i have ask the admin who made it. As this has been done more than once, I have accept it after other user have explain it to me that this is usual way on hrwiki.
  • Part with:Walter defends Sarajevo, oh Yes! That was the real start of Kubura´s wikistalk. This part has been explained above under Dungodung´s comment. I am still loughing and don´t want to elaborate still the same. just for notice: I just noted that if there was a rule breaking by my side as i make CU request on meta (there was no active CU on hrwiki), the steward is those who should remind me of that. But as another hr admin wrote above: there is no need for community opinion (see above under Dungo´s comment).
  • Steward block on hrwiki: I requested a fast block of an vandal on #wikimedia-stewards after this one has vandalize several of pages in few minutes. After that Ex13 wrote that i should have request a block on #wikipedia-hr and not from an steward. So as a question on all crosswiki vandalfighters: Where do you request imidiate block in such cases if you have #wikimedia-stewards open?!? About global rollback on hr wiki: it is not allowed on hr wiki to use it by local policy, but it is enabled by global policy. Today, which a coincidence, I have inform User:Mercy on his talkpage about that, because he used his rollback today on hrwiki. I still hope he is not blocked :). The comment can be readed on Mercy´s talk page on cs.wiki.
  • Explaining Kubura which role do a sysop have: really no need to comment. He still don´t know it or doesn´t understand it.

From above, it is evident... ah read and judge yourself. Once more thanks to Speedy for such... how should i say... vote of support? :) --WizardOfOz talk 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


"Tolerance: User:Bugoslav should have been blocked after all warnings and POV edits..."
This is blatant WizardOfOz's attack on user Bugoslav. User Bugoslav referred to Serbian wikisource (Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina) [105] [106]. And that's POV? Is WizardOfOz belittleing Serbian Wikisource and the official documents of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
"User:Sokac121 was warned to write on bosnian and not croatian language. Yes it´s tolerance, ´couse on hrwiki he would be blocked after first warning."
The speculation about "being blocked after first warning on hr.wiki" (because of non-Croatian writings) is badintentional negative etiquetting and blatant attack on hr.wiki.
WizardOfOz is the witness himself that hr.wiki tolerates certain things [107] (e.g., my communication and cooperation with WizardOfOz on the article Prijedor) [108] (my corections on the same article). That much about "intolerance on hr.wiki" and Kubura's "extreme intolerance for serbian or bosniak contributors" (as Ante Perkovic lied above).
WizardOfOz was notified about his non-Croatian writing on hr.wiki, but his non-Croatian writings were tolerated.
Until he crossed the line with attacks on users from hr.wiki. Noone from hr.wiki did the same on bs.wiki, as he did on hr.wiki.
Users are blocked on hr.wiki because of attacking behaviour, not because of language. Kubura 02:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Users are blocked on hr.wiki because of attacking behaviour, not because of language. [109] As a block reason you gave this [110] (his answer), and have added: you have been warned several times to write in croatian.
"blatant attack on Bugoslav": No it is just a way i see an POV warrior and vandal.
For speculation: see link and block reason above.
Toleration of my non-croatian edits: Have you, or have you not warned me to write in croatian because you don´t understand me?!? :And please try to answer clear in just few sentences withot trolling, I know it is not easy, but just try. --WizardOfOz talk 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You support Peko's personal attacks?!! Peko's message was full of personal attacks [111]. I won't tolerate that. I'm not a punchbag. That insignificant contributor [112] Peko crossed the line there. His personal attacks were primary reason for blocking him indefinitely. No loss for hr.wiki. Read carefully the explanation [113].
Don't distract us from the true problem. It's you who tried to destabilize hr.wiki. You're the one that wrote implicit legal threats. You're the one that harassed our admins. You're the one that's gaming the system by attacking hr.wiki users on this project, so "hr.wiki admins cannot sanction you for something you done on another project". You're the one that's trolling and writing personal attacks like "You're too cowardly...". Kubura 04:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

reply Sokac121[edit]

[114]--Sokac121 11:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user talk. On every wiki there are some black sheeps. There is a different if there is one under ten or 8 under ten. --WizardOfOz talk 14:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


User:WizardOfOz told a lie that they regarded me tolerantly on bs:wiki. User:CERminator [115] behaviour toward me was sarcastic, humiliating and antagonizing and that can not be called tolerance.

WizardofOz also again break rules of Freenode and Wikipedia by public talk about IRC conversations. If you want to publish data about IRC talks please ask for permissions of all users whose words you are quoting, in opposite case do not speak of IRC.[116]--Sokac121 23:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn´t told a lie. You have been warned from one sysop, and have respectfull answers of other two. Behavior of one is not the whole bswiki :). For breaking of rules of freenode, I can´t remember that i have post something exept the log above. --WizardOfOz talk 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Freenode philosophy - Channel guidelines "If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant....Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light"
Where's the permission from the other participant? You don't have my permission. Kubura 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Show my order to portray you in bad light please. And btw, is your ignoring of a question if you are Kamarad Walter your way to admit it? Are you Kamarad Walter? Do you have sockpuppet for evasion of dewiki block? --WizardOfOz talk 14:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"is your ignoring of a question if you are Kamarad Walter your way to admit it? Are you Kamarad Walter? Do you have sockpuppet for evasion of dewiki block?"
Cant find the connection between the quote and the headline of this RFC (Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura).--Saxum 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User:Bugoslav[edit]

Anybody who knows something about the Wikipedia in Croatian language would say that it has some problems, but to a lesser extend than on some similarly sized wiki projects. As if anything can exist without problems. En:wiki has even greater problems, and some of them (content wise) are in direct link with the problems of almost all wikipedia's in the south Slavic circle.

Someone might say that the problems are not detected correctly and most certainly are not detected with full comprehension and grasp of the situation. And I would be the first to claim just that.

The main problem is when users cross into the "neighbouring" projects to push for some content to be changed, some even cross the line and insist they speak perfect standard language of those projects (which they hardly can without help from a dictionary, orthography manuals, and similar).

In such cases, and particularly when the person crossing over is an admin (on his/her main wiki project), then those person(s) act as if they are legitimate part of that Community, but have hidden agendas to fulfil. I would also be the first to defend that anybody can edit, but only if they do not disrupt the project, and also and more importantly do not act as mediators between "real" members of the Community (members who are dedicated mainly to the particular wiki project).

Sometimes such agenda is just correcting some factual fallacies, but sometimes it is to affect the Community with constant badgering and pushing and pressing the Community on talk pages, insisting on fruitless discussions in the Village pump (hr:wiki:Kafić) or moving such discussions outside the project (to limit participants).

When such deeds happen, trust is compromised and problems begin. For instance there was a discussion on bs:wiki about moving the article on Bosnian Croats to a better title, namely Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina (or Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina). The majority approved, two users (admins) did not approve, and the move was cancelled. The article at the Wikipedia in Bosniak language on Bosnian Croats is locked (protected) for a very long time now.

Wizard of Oz (Seha) should hear his own words when he asked me to submit to the "opinion of the Community" (on bs:wiki) [117]. This forced submission was despite my attempt to quote [118] the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which I found on Serbian wikisource.

The entire squabble happened at bs:Hej Slaveni where I wanted to insert properly sourced information that the former anthem of the SFRY was sung in SR BiH in the language of SR BiH (even if that language is completely imaginary and politically invented with the name Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian with Ijekavian Pronounciation).

From the history of that article it is clearly seen that bs:Korisnik:Toni and myself started the "creativity process" of determining the wording of the article, but then Seha appeared and threatened me with blocking, and for what, using sources and duly discussing the matter at the talk page. Even he admitted Ver 01:52, 2009-05-24 that I was correct when changing the text, but not before the threat of blocking Ver 01:19, 2009-05-24 (which was issued 30 minutes earlier).

There is little tolerance on bs:wiki, namely everyone who is not perfect with Bosniak/Bosnian standard language is demanded to write on talk pages, but when Seha and his friends come to hr:wiki they insist on editing in the main space because they (allegedly) speak perfect Croatian and many of them insist that it is the same language, so naturally they speak it perfectly. Some of the stuff written on my user talk page at bs:wiki, where I have been called an ignorant, and that is for their POV as close as being the opponent to the Bosnian language, where my person has been constantly under watch, and for what, for using sources and trying to describe facts as they came. Almost every my action was proclaimed a provocation and the sources (from the exact period of time, when something happened) were proclaimed as suspicious. That kind of behaviour you cannot find on hr:wiki, but it is reasonable to ask somebody not to talk to you. Why should anybody accept comments (user talk pages, and article talk pages too) in a language they do not want to hear?


When coming to the issue of respecting the Community, and the necessity of submitting oneself to its "opinion" [119] Wizard of Oz claims that 2:1 is a good compromise and that Toni and himself acted in the best interest of the article at hand.

Wizard of Oz is full of lecturing others and speaking how something is done at en:wiki but when he came to edit the article (which he did not edit previously) he acted like an user, user that has admin rights, and user that misused those rights, because it is not an option, not at en:wiki for an admin to come meddling into the editorial process and forcing his opinion onto others. He as an admin should have looked for a way of facilitating compromise between me and Toni, using his admin tools to guide both Toni and me to a compromise, and not forcing his POV onto the article.

These are the real problems, not Kubura's decisions.

P.S. To Seha and others who share his POV, writing the name of the language in which the anthem was sung would be considered apologetic towards the system and country you hold so dear.

Bugoslav 21:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bugoslav. Just as a question: what has my behavior on bswiki to do with block on hrwiki?!? Is that one of block reasons? If yes, than it just shows Kubura´s misuse of admin tools. And btw, you have been several times warned on that article, not just from me, but also from other admins and users. But is there something you can say about my block on hrwiki or is this just a try of trolling? What does a editwar to do with Kuburas behavior?!? Have you even see what this request is talking about? If you want to make a editwar request, than do it by other admins on bswiki. I´m sure those will help you if your not again trying to put some changes without NPOV. And please show those edits which i have made on hr wiki in main space. You will finde just iw and small corrections. The only article where i have edit more than that is hr:Rat na Pacifiku, and this together with Branka and i think Mario Zamic. Those two have corrected grammar, because i talk to them before editing on IRC. About not tolerating other languag edits on bhwiki, please contact mk:USer:Macedonianboy. I have never reverted an edit just because it is written on other language. If it is a nonsense, than yes, but that not only for reason it comes from an non-bosnian speaker". My behavior against non-bosnian speakers you can see here (I would say it is correcting grammar). Here you can see how this user has been warned for not-speaking bosnian. He has also been blocked for infinite from my side, but after he saw that his edits are against NPOV rule, he was deblocked. The block reason was solved here. That is the normaly way conflicts can be solved, not insisting on PPOV edits. Thank you for your comment :). --WizardOfOz talk 14:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment is intended to show how a majority of 2:1 on your main project is enough to force compliance (or even obedience, the word you used is pokoriti se) to the "decision" of the Community, and the fact that you came to hr:wiki not to write articles, but force the community to adopt some policies from other wikimedia projects.

When that same Community on hr:wiki disbanded its ArbCom, in order not to block the development of the project, you felt that your position is somewhat weakened and decided to attack Kubura, and some other users (which were at that time not active). This action went against the Community and was "felt" that way.

When you asked for an administrative ruling on hr:wiki, you also acted against procedure, the valid procedure is to try to solve the issue at the user talk page, and that after some pause time (not before).

Also I was obliged to answer on your defamation of my character, as if I have vandalised any article at bs:wiki, I have tried to use a valid source from sr.wikisource, but I was denied to make the article more informative by your abuse of administrative powers.

Since this is not a court, but an open hearing, both you and Kubura are valid subjects of discussion, and we all know what is the situation at bs:wiki regarding local sources, and local users. Bugoslav 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When you asked for an administrative ruling on hr:wiki, you also acted against procedure, the valid procedure is to try to solve the issue at the user talk page, and that after some pause time (not before). Have you read this request for comment? You didn´t, true? Please explain me few things:

  • How can I edit on a wiki where I am blocked? Kubura has even block me for editing of my own talk page!!!
  • Why should I try to solve it on hr wiki, where Kubura is talking about others which are involved, and now he is talking about his decision and he is the only involved?
  • How can i expect a neutral meaning of someone who is perhaps involved in the block?
  • Now, please give me a diff where I have attack Kubura. Otherway it is a personal attack by you.

Also I was obliged to answer on your defamation of my character, as if I have vandalised any article at bs:wiki, I have tried to use a valid source from sr.wikisource, but I was denied to make the article more informative by your abuse of administrative powers.

  • No you didn´t. Wikisource is not in every case a valid source for Wikipedia. You have just tryed to put your POV in the article, and that was vandalism. You have gone against NPOV rule, have been involved in editwaring, have try to put a invalid reference just to aprove your POV... that is called vandalism. BTW the same rules you have broke on hrwiki where you have been blocked several times. It was one article! Can´t remember of reverting your edits after that. So would you please answer me the questions above, and if possible give me a diff? Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz talk 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

PS:This is another try to put your POV without source. I hope it will not end in the 3rd or 4th block on hrwiki :). --WizardOfOz talk 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have taken a pause first, then contacted the Community via user talk page (which you could have and did do as an IP) but on your user talk page not directly at Administrators' noticeboard (:hr:Wikipedija:Zahtjev za mišljenje administratora), then you could have contacted the blocking administrator or any other administrator (who would discuss the matter with the blocking administrator, before any action).
But no, you directly went with the next step in mediation, as if you were an admin on hr:wiki.
You are well aware that administrators are not paid for their work, and that you cannot harass them needlessly and most definitely not without proper procedures.
You are an experienced admin from bs:wiki to know all that, but no, you did not even wait for the body of administrators to pass decision (because you saw that four other administrators) and possibly others are against your claim that Kubura acted without consideration of all implications. Your entire contribution was valued, and instead of your apologies, you started a meta discussion, I repeat without the proper local procedures being followed.
Even if we do not count your procedural misconduct, and the pretence of not knowing the basic truth about wikipedia, and that is respecting the flow of the spice, adding new content, and the betterment of our understanding of the World.

Also we cannot help to wonder why an editor who really worked on only one article (Rat na Pacifiku) (on a wikipedia that is written in a language he "disproves", e.g. Seha voted for a union of bs, hr, "sh", and sr wikisources ) is allowed to bypass the local community; and when in the process of doing such deeds, (abridgement of the local (hr) Community), he got blocked (because of the disruption of that local Community and because of not following the rules set by that very same local Community), he is yet again allowed to badmouth the local Community to which he wants to be a "productive" member of.

This procedure on meta is out of order, because the procedures on local Community are not over.

And for my POV, I wonder how it can be POV to ask for the language in which the anthem was sung in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which was incidentally the language of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (up to 1995)) be listed, in order to provide the reader clear notice that it is not written in standard Bosnian language, with the option of listing the version in that language.
Quoting the last Constitution of the land in which the majority of native speakers of the Wikipedia in Bosnian language live?
Also I have followed the procedures forced on me, to write my contributions only on talk pages (of respective articles) and which I have followed to the best of my abilities.
I have asked on the appropriate talk page to list the version of the anthem as it was sung by partisans in Croatia and in the lands which now comprise Bosnia and Herzegovina, to show that in those times the anthem was sung with a clearly different and interesting text.
Which (text) have been properly referenced!?

I would respectfully ask Wizard Of Oz not to continue the allegations of POV which can be discussed at the local wikipedia, we are not here to discuss this.

And finally, I am not obliged to discuss Kubura, nor I am obliged to discuss your behaviour, but I am obliged to point out the procedural failure (done by Seha/WizardOfOz) which should lead to the dismissal this proceedings. Bugoslav 18:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Once more: have you read this request? Have you read my answer and the questions above? I don´t want to spam this page, so please use your eyes and read my answer, the questions and the request above. About your POV edits, there is a block request for you based on editwaring and POV. About the procedure: my request for comment (not admins noticeboard), is closed without consensus on hrwiki. The reasons for transfering it to meta are named above, so please use your eyes and screen and try to read. Posting via open proxy, where i can´t log in anymore, was the only solution to make a request for comment on hrwiki. As i have a static IP, I´m not able to contribute trough proxy anymore. Thats why i just can wait here and read all of those attacks by Kubura on hrwiki without consequences. Even in your block request, he is talking about me and have force others to post there where i can´t defend myself (read Rjecina´s comment on hrwiki). After all, he is warning users as a admin, even if his flag is removed. And sorry, but this request is not out of order untill there is a solution and it is closed. --WizardOfOz talk 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


WizardOfOz, please, attack the discussant's arguments, don't attack the discussant.
-    about [120]: I appreciate both Rječina and Bugoslav. Rječina, that requested blocking of Bugoslav, is known for overreacting sometimes. All users don't have understanding for Bugoslav's incredible interest for details and exact reading of text. Bugoslav does cite sources.
-   "closed without consensus". Please, count. Your attacks on hr.wiki and users from hr.wiki here have just made your situation worse.
-   "attacks by Kubura on hrwiki ". I haven't named you. I don't like to name people; I use descriptions of behaviour of certain users. Interested reader(s) can recognize the subject. 19:01, 31 March 2010 you said that I'm talking about you (" he is talking about me ")? That was your conclusion, you said that;I haven't mentioned your name.
31 March 2010 I wrote two messages on hr.wiki Village pump:

  • "Volio bih da svoju energiju usmjeriš prema onima što se djetinjasto i obijesno izmotavaju i izdivljavaju na Meti, što se osorno ponašaju prema našoj zajednici i što namjeravaju drmati hr.wikicom spletkarenjem na Meti, kad nisu uspjeli na hr.wiki, budući da bi se iskompromitirali onakvim pisanjima ovdje odnosno budući da je neke od njih hr.wiki zajednica pročitala".
  • "Bugoslav nije ovdje dva dana i nije od onih koji su se tek pojavili i odmah napadali, kritizirali i dijelili packe, niti od onih koji napravidu 5-6 uređivanjca između napada da ispada da nešto radidu i to im služi kao izlika da možedu napasti druge....Bugoslav ima mnoštvo doprinosa sadržaju članaka. Ne radi se o nepotrebnim snimanjima i copy-paste istog odlomka u 100 članaka kojih se napravilo u 1-2 dana"

Which messages of these two above (or both) you had in mind when you wrote "he's talking about me"?
-   "...have force others to post...". That's a lie. I don't force. My reputation, long time cooperation and mutual respect makes hr.wiki.users to write here.
"he is warning users as a admin, even if his flag is removed"
Yes, I'm the admin. It's hr.wiki that chose me for admin, and if hr.wiki community decides to desysop me, than I won't be the admin. My admintools were illegally removed by steward, contrary to Stewards #Don't_decide "Their task is to implement valid community consensus." and Stewards_policy#Transparency "When a community asks that rights be changed, a link should be provided to the page where the action was discussed and agreed upon by the community ". Kubura 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have count and have post the opinions on the top of the request.
  • I haven't named you. You did, not in that post, but here, together with all others. I know that you are to cowardly to name, so you can later say i didn´t spoke about them, or i didn´t named them. That is just a way a troll do. Last but not least, everyone know that I have made this request and can see it on the top. Talking about try to destroy independence and souverenity of hrwiki, is just one more attack on me. Even if you didin´t say WizardOfOz, everybody knows who you mean, and can conclude what you are talking about. It will be nice if you can stop your trollish way and try to stand your man. The POV edits of Bugoslav are not a point of this request. About forcing others, just take a look on the Village pump, or better after my comment archived part of same. BTW are you User:Kamarad Walter? --WizardOfOz talk 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message above is the example of trolling. "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." You've been warned previously [121]. See the bottom of the message. I haven't named nor etiquetted you here. Don't blame me for things you've done. You started this RfC. "Everybody knows who you mean..." No, it's you feeling the guilt. I don't force others. Live with the fact that users dislike your behaviour. Further, I'm not Kamarad Walter. "POV edits of Bugoslav are not a point...". You've attacked Bugoslav here several times, by saying that he wrotes POV edits; you started that. You've belittled Wikisource in Serbian language, since Bugoslav referred to that page. Here you made rude personal attack. You said "I know that you are too cowardly to name...". Have you ever heard for Nomina sunt odiosa? I've told you already on hr.wiki on that same edit (04:15, 18 Jan 2010)[122] that I will not name people, since it's not nice. Naming (=prozivati) is like pointing to someone with the finger on the street. "Names, names, we want names". Do you know which governing systems used those words? Naming is hidden way of etiquetting. I don't like naming and I don't support such behaviour. However, your recent messages additionally confirmed and proved that I'm right: you've continued with attacks. Now you're attacking and hiding behind Meta according to attitude "You cannot punish me for something that happened on the other project.". That's attempt to game the system. I'm "too cowardly" and "troll" just because I want to be polite? Man, inflammatory and insulting words like "You're too cowardly" belong to streetfight and bar brawls, they don't belong to encyclopedic projects like Wikipedia. These are rude personal attack. And you're an sysop after all these personal attacks? Kubura 03:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Kubura, but I´m not going to feed the troll anymore. --WizardOfOz talk 21:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment User:Rjecina2[edit]

It is time for me to enter discussion because of today comments. First I must say that Bugoslav is not user, but patroller on Croatian wikipedia [123]. My vote has been against, but it is deleted because only patrollers and administrators are having right to vote for new patrollers. Discussion between me and Bugoslav about which WizardOfOz is speaking his number 4 weird POV revert, but I am not on meta to speak about that.

In beginning I have been against block of WizardOfOz, but now I am having interesting question. If administrator User:CERminator is blocking editors to write on Bosnian wiki, why can't WizardOfOz be blocked on Croatian wiki ??

I ask this because my experience on Bosnian wiki with this administrator has been copy of user:Sokac121 experience. On 19 June 2009 I have edited on Bosnian wiki about Bosnian war and role of United Kingdom only to be reverted (+article deletion) by User:CERminator with warnings:

  • 1) do not write stupid things because this is vandalism
  • 2) this is Bosnian wiki please write articles on Bosnian[124].

After I have started discussion about this events Bosnian wiki community decision has been that you must write on Bosnian language. Even administrator in question is now speaking that my deleted article is now OK, but language is wrong [125]. I am not blocked on Bosnian wikipedia, but message from Bosnian community is: "Do not write on our wikipedia."

User:CERminator is not black black sheep, but 1 of bosnian wikipedia "kings".

My point is that on Bosnian wikipedia users from other states which understand Bosnian language are asked to stop writing on Bosnian wiki. On Croatian wikipedia WizardOfOz has been blocked.

My question is what is real difference between this 2 situations ??--Rjecina2 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, wizard was not blocked 'cause of writing in main name space in language other than Croatian, nor due to POV issues. He allegedly personally attacked few users (from Speedy's table we can see that they have very wide and odd sense of personal attacks
Regarding language issues, it is not big problem if You are dealing with open-minded and good-faith users. You can list all differences between national standards and use bots to replace "foreign" words in articles. I added this as regular tasks for my bot. So, I agree with you - saying that someone's contributions will be reverted in future because of few words is the easiest way of driving somebody out. But, more bigger problem is fact that somebody is provoking or putting pressure on you to write on "home" language on talk pages or on central Wikipedia forum.
Btw, is is true that Kubura has sock-puppet (user:Kamarad Walter) with which he can edit hr.wiki while pretending being absent so he can disrupt Wikipedia? -- Bojan  Talk  06:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
@Rjecina, the difference is: I can´t remember that there is anyone blocked for infinite by me for not editing in bosnian. There are much blocks i have done for POV, but not for not writing in bosnian. I have warned many, that is true, but that is a usual practice on bs, hr and srwiki. Blocks for usual come after ignoring warnings. But that is normal on every wiki. It is lingual project, and if we allow all to write so they want, then we can close all 700 projects and make a multilingual wiki. But as my nick say, I am not CERminator, and as it looks it is not my issue. Nobody is talking about other admins like me, Kal-El, Smooth O, Squirrel, mediteran... Everyone can contact him (CERminator the king LOL) and ask for his behavior. The second diffrence is, that Kubura have block me just as revange for my behavior on meta. Even if he was warned from another user, he didn´t stop trolling on a request page. After i have remove his trollish behavior, he block me on hrwiki :). Just read the top of the request. After that, i tryed to contact him on IRC, and there he explained the block as you can read in the log above. After all that, he edited my talk page on hrwiki twice and have remove the first block reason adding others. Now, in his opinion, he is trying to defende my block with things months ago, even as he wasn´t a sysop on hrwiki. And if it is true, that Kamarad Walter and Kubura are the same, than it is the best way to show his double standards. He is allways talking about sockpuppets, how destructive those are, has suspect many users as sockpuppeter and he is perhaps also one? I just take a look on the edits of both on dewiki. They are quite similar, also same wrong grammar those two users use. Both of them have use their accounts to vote, so it will be easy to request a CU on dewiki. As i can see on the link in Boki´s comment, it was declined for "CU are not for fishing" on hrwiki. I think on dewiki those will be done. --WizardOfOz talk 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
We are having few different problems....
My example about User:CERminator is not used to attack WizardOfOz, but to show that our Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian wiki are POV. They are not POV because of users but because of administrators which support POV policy. Users from Croatia are recieving messages that they are not welcome on Bosnian wiki. Users from Serbia are recieving messages that they are not welcome on Croatian wiki. Best example about editorial Rashomon effect are articles about War in Bosnia and Herzegovina on Bosnian, Croatia (I have writen Croatian version) and Serbian.
My personal thinking is that administrators on Croatian wikipedia support profascism article versions, but this is my personal thinking. In line with that we are having decisions by croatian administrators that all history books writen in Croatia/Yugoslavia during last 60 - 100 years are wrong (example:Croatian Lexicographical Institute site with published Encyclopedia from 2005 is using "old" data), or in another words they can't be used on wikipedia because they are writen by Yugoslav, communist historians (this is my answer on Kubura attack on 31. March about my block on Croatian wiki). Then we are having administrator decision that in my personal thinking fascist historian are "respected" sources for Croatian wikipedia.
All in all we are not on this place because of Croatian wikipedia problems, but because of administrator Kubura decisions. In light of Kubura decision from 31 March when he has jumped in protection of his friend Bugoslav against my demand for Bugoslav blocking I must support removal of Kubura administrator powers. I support this decision not because Kubura has voted against my demand, but because he has not denied my accusation of harrasment (reverts and comments about my "attacks" on article about Croatian parliament). His decision is only speaking about my old "mistakes" and not about accusation of harrasment. Administrator must look evidence and make decisions and not make decisions because somebody is his friend or enemy.--Rjecina2 07:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
If everything will go OK in near future I will be blocked on Croatian wikipedia.....
Few days ago I have asked short block on Croatia wikipedia of user Bugoslav because of harrasment (his POV reverts without explanation of my edits on 21 March, March 21, 30 March, 30 March, his 30 March warnings about my "weird" edits (which he has not changed until now) and his false attack my "weird edits" in article about Croatian parliament [126].
Shortly speaking decision about my demand for protection from croatian administrators have been we will not talk about that.
Today user Bugoslav has edited 1 of my "weird" edits about which I have been warned on 30 March. After that I have edited. My edits are showing both sides (Yugoslav and Croatian) of story + I have added reliable sources, only to be reverted by administrator which is restoring like source blog BogiHrvati (english:GodandCroats) [127] and deleting my sources which are greatest daily newspapers in Croatia with words during long time period you are only making reverts and having disputes on discussion pages (I can add with users Bugoslav and Croq) [128].
This administrator is right when he speak that I do not write articles, but my point is that I refuse to write articles on wikipedia where blog and fascist writers are respectable sources and on other side must popular Croatian media or books writen in last 60 years are garbage. --Rjecina2 10:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply by one of admins[edit]

If everything goes well, and as should, everybody involved will take steps to calm down and listen to arguments. Predicting blocks is just one way to ignite situation and will lead us nowhere. As I clearly stated at [pump] what you need is just to follow normal approach instead of approach "they hate me". Conflicts are solved if you keep clear mind and not adding more fuel. Instead of predicting your future blocks, please calm down and try to work your problem according wikipedia standards. Thanks and regards --Lasta 11:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am again reverted by administrator on Croatian wikipedia, blog is again source and I am blocked for 6 hours because I do not know when to stop.--Rjecina2 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To make long story short and try to explain on english because this is article on croatian wikipedia and dispute is in sentence:
"Đureković killing is order by Mika Špiljak (Yugoslavia high ranking minister) because his (Špiljak) son has been involved with missing money and there has been possibility that Đureković can talk (source for statement is Blog God and Croats)" - administrator version
"After Đureković is involved with missing money Yugoslavia is declaring him guilty of theft and he is escaping to Germany. On other side Croats in Germany and killer of Yugoslav secret police are speaking that he is victim of missing money for what Špiljak is responsible" (sources are must popular Croatian newspapers) - my version [129]
I must add that there is agreement in both versions about fact that Đureković is killed by Yugoslav secret police.
In one thing administrator Jure Grm is right: "I do not know when to stop" or in other words I know what is possible to write on Croatian wikipedia and what is not possible. Today I have only tested what is meta thinking about situation on Croatian wikipedia (because of that I am crossing line).
Happy Easter--Rjecina2 14:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment User:Flopy[edit]

I fully support what Rjecina2 has written about the administrators on hr.wiki. Some of them are problem and have double standards. I was blocked by Ex13 for 1 day because of one single sentence [130] which was annotated as a personal attack and I just have said my opinion. Currently I am waiting for the opinion other administrator abot this, in my opinion, misuse of admin tools by Ex13 [131] and if necessary I will after that request for comment here on meta. I agree with Rjecina that not all sources and books written during Yugoslavia are "garbadge" but I can more successfully than Rjecina argue with Kubura and others (administrators and users), because the history is my profession. But I also have troubles because of expressing of my opinion and was attacked many times (the administrators didn't react) and I was blocked because of one single sentence. So, I am sorry but it is all the true what Rjecina has written here. And not only Rjecina. I hope that everbody can read my English:)) --Flopy 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, this RFC is not about Ex, Rjecinas block or literature in ex-Yugoslavia.--Saxum 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No, but the things can rarely be disscused isolated. The are connected with this RFC. --Flopy 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Local request for giving back the sysop flag to Kubura[edit]

Just as information, there is a local request for giving back the sysop flag to Kubura by an local ´crat. --WizardOfOz talk 23:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Closed per this. --WizardOfOz talk 21:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)